IMHO, any outcome that allows us to play post season with the current team intact is a win.

(10-12-2021 10:10 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:45 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:22 PM)ImaTiger Wrote:  Looking at the list of entries post notice of allegations, seems that we have the verdict and we are needling it. Which implies we are screwed. But perhaps we can delay the punishment till next season?

Quote:August 27, 2021, Memphis submitted a request for reconsideration of the chief panel member’s response regarding compliance with operating procedures.

Without knowing way more than about the process, that seems pretty ambiguous. It follows a bunch of requests for extension of time. They could have dinged us for dragging our feet (failing to comply with the investigations operating procedures) and said they won't accept any more on their production requests or something like that. Or it could mean what I think you're guessing at, that they ruled against us substantively (that we failed to follow NCAA or internal operating procedures wrt to Wiseman's eligibility). Or it could mean something completely different from either one of those things. The NCAA infractions process is so opaque (and I guess it has to be somewhat because of FERPA), it's hard to make sense of a lot of what is going on.

But whatever it is, it's not great that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Maybe not fatal. But not good.

And even if they found a substantive violation it doesn't say anything about what if any punishment will be.

This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

The court didn't mandate that Wiseman must play. The injunction just said that the NCAA couldn't stop him from playing. Penny could still have and should have sat him.

There is no winning that from either side...

- Dressing him and not playing him is still not suspending him which violates the NCAA
- Dressing him and not playing him (top 3 player in the country) effectively serves as suspending him

In short, you might as well play him because regardless of whether you play him or not you still have him dressed out and on the bench.

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

I didn't love it at all. I love Penny as much as any fan, but I hated that decision then and I still do. Playing Wiseman was a very bad idea from day one. A lot of people took on the "Us against the world" mantra. Well, here we are.

I would hate to see a very promising season derailed because of something that happened two years ago - which I think is absurd, too - but I cringed at the thought that flexing our muscle against the clowns that are the NCAA would get us anywhere.

(10-12-2021 09:21 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

There is only one set of allegations. Not two. The original got amended.

The amendment could have added something. It's possible. But the initial set of allegations came after the investigation was already finished. So I'm not sure how something else could have come to light after the investigation was over and the finding reported, that would cause allegations to be added.

The amendment could have revised or removed allegations. I am choosing to believe this. Primarily because the amendment came right after the response from Memphis regarding the original allegations. So I am taking the amended allegations as a good sign.

As for the extensions, there were really only 4 requests for extension - not 6. GP made a big deal about the university being the one delaying the process because they've filed "6 extensions". They've filed 4 and Penny filed 2 in conjunction with 2 of the ones that the university filed. So 2 of the extensions ran parallel with 2 others. So there have been only 4 extensions granted.

And these 4 extensions seem to have added a total of - at most - 3 months to the process. The process that has taken 23 months and counting. The delay is not on the university.

Finally, the university is not allowed to share anything until this gets resolved. FOIA requests might help though.

The information about a second allegation was talked about on the Gary Parish show. They said it came up during the investigation. If true it doesn't matter if it was original or added. I'll allow it's not accurate coming from Parish. I'm more concerned that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Is that for the second allegation or the original? We may not know until the final determination.

The delays are not an issue just part of explaining the length of time involved. Maybe 6 communication exchanges or 4 extensions is significant to some. I'll go with 4. I was not trying to indicate the slow decision process was our fault. Just that some communication had been occurring. I think Parish had his panties in a wad because he thinks he should have had access to all information all along.

(10-12-2021 07:58 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:45 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:22 PM)ImaTiger Wrote:  Looking at the list of entries post notice of allegations, seems that we have the verdict and we are needling it. Which implies we are screwed. But perhaps we can delay the punishment till next season?

Quote:August 27, 2021, Memphis submitted a request for reconsideration of the chief panel member’s response regarding compliance with operating procedures.

Without knowing way more than about the process, that seems pretty ambiguous. It follows a bunch of requests for extension of time. They could have dinged us for dragging our feet (failing to comply with the investigations operating procedures) and said they won't accept any more on their production requests or something like that. Or it could mean what I think you're guessing at, that they ruled against us substantively (that we failed to follow NCAA or internal operating procedures wrt to Wiseman's eligibility). Or it could mean something completely different from either one of those things. The NCAA infractions process is so opaque (and I guess it has to be somewhat because of FERPA), it's hard to make sense of a lot of what is going on.

But whatever it is, it's not great that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Maybe not fatal. But not good.

And even if they found a substantive violation it doesn't say anything about what if any punishment will be.

This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

A ton of fear mongering and baseless assumptions...

1. Wiseman was never deemed ineligible. We were told he was likely ineligible. That is a major and very important distinction.
2. Even when they punished Wiseman he was not deemed ineligible. He was simply suspended a few games. Wiseman chose to forgo the rest of the season, that was not because he was ruled ineligible to play the remainder of the season (sans a few games)
3. IARP is independent of the NCAA. So, there is really no reason for the IARP to feel like they need retribution on behalf of the NCAA.
4. The entire process has been relatively quiet. You seem to be taking that as a bad sign. The process is literally brand new for the IARP, Memphis and everyone involved. So, the fact that this has been quiet and not public seems to be expected. I imagine there has been a lot figured out by the IARP itself as the process has unfolded.

In short, maybe we get hammered for something. But I have not seen anything factual or concrete that leads me to believe that anymore than the IARP says we did nothing wrong the NCAA treated us unfairly. I expect it is something in between the two extremes but nothing terrible.

1. When the NCAA contacts you says he is likely ineligible that is a courtesy call to play it safe. That's ineligible until the the NCAA says you are eligible.
2. He was suspended and ineligible for those games. You can play with the words but bottom line the NCAA gave us a warning that a decision was coming and made a decision that says sit him for a set number of games. We didn't do that.
3. Agreed. They don't care anyway. No decision not in the favor of a school is popular.
4. uh, no.
You just repeated what I said about it being a brand new process. Certainly I would like to have an answer and the answer is a good one.

A small bit of information came out yesterday. We are talking abut it. The only answer that matters is the final one. If it's good news then it's all good. If it's a small bit of penalty like I mentioned then take your pill and move on.

I don't see with what we know so far as enough to get hammered. But what we know may not be all there is to know. It's not knowing with such great hope and possibilities for the season that's hard.

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:45 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:22 PM)ImaTiger Wrote:  Looking at the list of entries post notice of allegations, seems that we have the verdict and we are needling it. Which implies we are screwed. But perhaps we can delay the punishment till next season?

Quote:August 27, 2021, Memphis submitted a request for reconsideration of the chief panel member’s response regarding compliance with operating procedures.

Without knowing way more than about the process, that seems pretty ambiguous. It follows a bunch of requests for extension of time. They could have dinged us for dragging our feet (failing to comply with the investigations operating procedures) and said they won't accept any more on their production requests or something like that. Or it could mean what I think you're guessing at, that they ruled against us substantively (that we failed to follow NCAA or internal operating procedures wrt to Wiseman's eligibility). Or it could mean something completely different from either one of those things. The NCAA infractions process is so opaque (and I guess it has to be somewhat because of FERPA), it's hard to make sense of a lot of what is going on.

But whatever it is, it's not great that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Maybe not fatal. But not good.

And even if they found a substantive violation it doesn't say anything about what if any punishment will be.

This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:45 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Without knowing way more than about the process, that seems pretty ambiguous. It follows a bunch of requests for extension of time. They could have dinged us for dragging our feet (failing to comply with the investigations operating procedures) and said they won't accept any more on their production requests or something like that. Or it could mean what I think you're guessing at, that they ruled against us substantively (that we failed to follow NCAA or internal operating procedures wrt to Wiseman's eligibility). Or it could mean something completely different from either one of those things. The NCAA infractions process is so opaque (and I guess it has to be somewhat because of FERPA), it's hard to make sense of a lot of what is going on.

But whatever it is, it's not great that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Maybe not fatal. But not good.

And even if they found a substantive violation it doesn't say anything about what if any punishment will be.

This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

My favorite part of this saga is that when penny helped wiseman move penny was most likely going to steer wiseman to Kentucky.

(10-12-2021 09:21 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Finally, the university is not allowed to share anything until this gets resolved. FOIA requests might help though.

FOIA requests would be denied or delayed because the school cannot talk about this at all until the process is done. I would likely expect it to come back as a request to refile a FOIA once the process has been completed.

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

And you would lose...

Because I would point to the previous precedent (Tarkanina case) where the NCAA had the same situation where they didn't punish the school for following the court order.

(10-12-2021 02:00 PM)TGTiger Wrote:  My favorite part of this saga is that when penny helped wiseman move penny was most likely going to steer wiseman to Kentucky.

I agree ---but just curious ---how people feel about that---people on here say Penny loves the CITY and UNIVERSITY so much---yet he steered players elsewhere- away from his beloved CITY and UNIVERSITY

I think he did it for the greater good--knowing if he got rid of the lazy CON/CHARLATAN/THIEF --that he could come in and resurrect the program

What do yall think

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:45 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Without knowing way more than about the process, that seems pretty ambiguous. It follows a bunch of requests for extension of time. They could have dinged us for dragging our feet (failing to comply with the investigations operating procedures) and said they won't accept any more on their production requests or something like that. Or it could mean what I think you're guessing at, that they ruled against us substantively (that we failed to follow NCAA or internal operating procedures wrt to Wiseman's eligibility). Or it could mean something completely different from either one of those things. The NCAA infractions process is so opaque (and I guess it has to be somewhat because of FERPA), it's hard to make sense of a lot of what is going on.

But whatever it is, it's not great that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Maybe not fatal. But not good.

And even if they found a substantive violation it doesn't say anything about what if any punishment will be.

This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

The Tarkanian case was very different just because it was 30 years ago. Tark was right when he said that the NCAA targeted the small schools while letting the others get away with things. UNLV was punished though in the end. Plus back then the NCAA didn't have an appeal process, they didn't really even have to have evidence because hearsay would do. Anyone would have one that appeal.

Even with an injunction they didn't have to play Wiseman.

Penny could possibly play a different angle if he is given a more severe penalty than some of the other schools. Say that the Kansas, LSU, Arizona and Louisville get lesser penalties than Memphis and NC State then they could possibly make a case that since those 4 schools have white coaches and the other 2 have black coaches there is discrimination involved. I don't know if the NCAA wants to go down that road at all.

(10-12-2021 02:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

And you would lose...

Because I would point to the previous precedent (Tarkanina case) where the NCAA had the same situation where they didn't punish the school for following the court order.

I doubt the NCAA would have initiated this whole thing if the answer were as simple as that. Also, betting on NCAA to rely on precedent is shaky ground at best. They've been more than willing to shirk precedent to make a point.

(10-12-2021 02:23 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 02:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

And you would lose...

Because I would point to the previous precedent (Tarkanina case) where the NCAA had the same situation where they didn't punish the school for following the court order.

I doubt the NCAA would have initiated this whole thing if the answer were as simple as that. Also, betting on NCAA to rely on precedent is shaky ground at best. They've been more than willing to shirk precedent to make a point.

Such as 'Strict Accountability?'

(10-12-2021 01:14 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 07:24 PM)TigerinFL Wrote:  IF it happens to be as bad as it seems, Penny should go out every night with a goal to put at least 125 or more on the board every time they play. I don't care who we play. Show no mercy to anyone. Take no prisoners. Play angry and don't give the NCAA any satisfaction on any future questioning. Leave no doubt in anyone's mind who this team really is and how good they really are.

Our AD should be on TV every time he gets a chance and talk about the injustice the NCAA actually is. Memphis has never been and most likely will never get a fair shake from the gestapo. I doubt he'll have the cajones to do it .... but he should.

The only way it “seems” to be especially bad is if you believe Penny and the university lied to Bates and took his commitment one week after being told they were getting a postseason ban, you also have to believe the NCAAs lawyers/admins can go through the trouble of creating a bunch of case phases yet don’t think to distinguish between procedural phases and substantive/penalty phases. Y’all gotta stop listening to calkins and Parrish right now, they are literally making up everything they are saying

Half smart people like me stopped listening to those two clowns years ago.

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

(10-12-2021 11:34 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:21 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 07:24 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  This is a new process and we have no precedent for how this new process will work.

We volunteered to go through this process.

There are two allegations and we have asked for 6 delays including one reconsideration. The university has not shared that. It came out in the IARP response to media inquiries.

We loved it when Penny stood up to the NCAA and was supported by Rudd and Laird. That now looks to be in hindsight a very bad choice to have played Wiseman when they said he would likely be deemed ineligible. Doesn’t matter why we did it. We played an ineligible player with full knowledge of his impending status. We did this. We made in the eyes of the NCAA a minor into a possible major issue. We pissed on the NCAAs shoes.

For that Penny will likely be sitting for some games. I can live with that if that’s all. 3 games? 9 games? 12 games? I don’t know how they decide this but with Topper, LB and Wallace we can weather that storm. Penny comes off as a martyr and a players advocate which will help him out in recruiting.

A fine? We can handle that. Post-season ban? Possible, but seems heavy-handed. Hurts in many ways including any future expansion talk.

The second undefined allegation is a concern. Related or something found during the investigation?

Any talk that the IARP would be concerned about fairness is laughable.

There is only one set of allegations. Not two. The original got amended.

The amendment could have added something. It's possible. But the initial set of allegations came after the investigation was already finished. So I'm not sure how something else could have come to light after the investigation was over and the finding reported, that would cause allegations to be added.

The amendment could have revised or removed allegations. I am choosing to believe this. Primarily because the amendment came right after the response from Memphis regarding the original allegations. So I am taking the amended allegations as a good sign.

As for the extensions, there were really only 4 requests for extension - not 6. GP made a big deal about the university being the one delaying the process because they've filed "6 extensions". They've filed 4 and Penny filed 2 in conjunction with 2 of the ones that the university filed. So 2 of the extensions ran parallel with 2 others. So there have been only 4 extensions granted.

And these 4 extensions seem to have added a total of - at most - 3 months to the process. The process that has taken 23 months and counting. The delay is not on the university.

Finally, the university is not allowed to share anything until this gets resolved. FOIA requests might help though.

The information about a second allegation was talked about on the Gary Parish show. They said it came up during the investigation. If true it doesn't matter if it was original or added. I'll allow it's not accurate coming from Parish. I'm more concerned that we were asking for reconsideration of something. Is that for the second allegation or the original? We may not know until the final determination.

The delays are not an issue just part of explaining the length of time involved. Maybe 6 communication exchanges or 4 extensions is significant to some. I'll go with 4. I was not trying to indicate the slow decision process was our fault. Just that some communication had been occurring. I think Parish had his panties in a wad because he thinks he should have had access to all information all along.

I heard GP. He didn't say there was a 2nd allegation. He said it was amended. And he admitted he didn't know if something was added, changed, or removed in the amendment.

He then irresponsibly threw out the scenario where they MIGHT have found something in the investigation that led to additional charges in the amendment. But he only used that scenario so that he could tell us once again how smart he was about saying don't fight the thing, and how dumb the university was to not listen to him.

We simply don't know what was in the amendment. But to me, based upon the timeline (as I explained above), it looks like the amendment was favorable to us because it came shortly and directly after our response to them - and well after the investigation was complete.

Nice post

And there still has to be an official "Hearing"

Which hasn't happened yet