https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

DM Equivalent:
https://dailymemphian.com/section/sports...es-wiseman

Synopsis: The final IARP hearing was in May, and they're expecting a ruling before the season.

(06-27-2022 01:37 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  DM Equivalent:
https://dailymemphian.com/section/sports...es-wiseman

Synopsis: The final IARP hearing was in May, and they're expecting a ruling before the season.

Thank you

I think it'll be vacate the 3 games Wiseman played in, loss of 1 scholly (Wiseman's), probation, maybe even a show cause for Penny (won't matter much) but no post season ban.

(06-27-2022 01:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I think it'll be vacate the 3 games Wiseman played in, loss of 1 scholly (Wiseman's), probation, maybe even a show cause for Penny (won't matter much) but no post season ban.

We will sure take that huh

(06-27-2022 01:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

(06-27-2022 01:56 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

That has to be a good thing right ?

So...

Including NCAA investigators and former NCAA investigators when the process was trotted out as being independent, not allowing relevant info from Rudd, misconduct among investigators, infractions that aren't even close to Level I. Plus they cleared us twice, then cleared us saying there was a procedural error, then never even definitely said that Wiseman wasn't eligible.

Ridiculous.

(06-27-2022 02:00 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:56 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

That has to be a good thing right ?

This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

Others have followed this saga more than me and may be able to shed light on this for me.

I've heard that we are facing stiff penalties because we were informed by the NCAA that Wiseman was "likely ineligible" and played him anyway. People say this was a bad move and that it was an affront to the NCAA. But the NCAA is the governing body that determines eligibility, so they had the power to declare him ineligible pending an investigation and thereby tell us definitely that we could not play Wiseman. They didn't do that. They used the term "likely ineligible", the implication being that if we played him and he was subsequently found to be ineligible, we would be subject to the usual penalties like those that were applied when Derrick Rose was declared ineligible after the fact...vacated wins for example.

How can you be subject to extra punishment for not heeding a recommendation from the NCAA vs. what you would have gotten if no recommendation was given?
It's like you're driving 50 in a 40 zone, a cop pulls you over and gives you a warning. If you immediately start driving 50 again and the cop pulls you over a second time, does he get to cuff you and take you to jail instead of issuing you the customary fine?

(06-27-2022 02:05 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  Others have followed this saga more than me and may be able to shed light on this for me.

I've heard that we are facing stiff penalties because we were informed by the NCAA that Wiseman was "likely ineligible" and played him anyway. People say this was a bad move and that it was an affront to the NCAA. But the NCAA is the governing body that determines eligibility, so they had the power to declare him ineligible pending an investigation and thereby tell us definitely that we could not play Wiseman. They didn't do that. They used the term "likely ineligible", the implication being that if we played him and he was subsequently found to be ineligible, we would be subject to the usual penalties like those that were applied when Derrick Rose was declared ineligible after the fact...vacated wins for example.

How can you be subject to extra punishment for not heeding a recommendation from the NCAA vs. what you would have gotten if no recommendation was given?
It's like you're driving 50 in a 40 zone, a cop pulls you over and gives you a warning. If you immediately start driving 50 again and the cop pulls you over a second time, does he get to cuff you and take you to jail instead of issuing you the customary fine?

....yep and how stupid we would have looked if we didn't play him --then the last game before the season ends --they then tell us he is indeed eligible --we cry foul for the long delay ---they laughingly say- HEY we NEVER said for sure he was ineligible -when we could have been playing him all along. The mistake was DROPPING the lawsuit

Regardless, we should have never played Wiseman period!! If we don't play James then we're probably not in this mess...

(06-27-2022 02:05 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  Others have followed this saga more than me and may be able to shed light on this for me.

I've heard that we are facing stiff penalties because we were informed by the NCAA that Wiseman was "likely ineligible" and played him anyway. People say this was a bad move and that it was an affront to the NCAA. But the NCAA is the governing body that determines eligibility, so they had the power to declare him ineligible pending an investigation and thereby tell us definitely that we could not play Wiseman. They didn't do that. They used the term "likely ineligible", the implication being that if we played him and he was subsequently found to be ineligible, we would be subject to the usual penalties like those that were applied when Derrick Rose was declared ineligible after the fact...vacated wins for example.

How can you be subject to extra punishment for not heeding a recommendation from the NCAA vs. what you would have gotten if no recommendation was given?
It's like you're driving 50 in a 40 zone, a cop pulls you over and gives you a warning. If you immediately start driving 50 again and the cop pulls you over a second time, does he get to cuff you and take you to jail instead of issuing you the customary fine?

(06-27-2022 02:11 PM)TigersTigers Wrote:  Regardless, we should have never played Wiseman period!! If we don't play James then we're probably not in this mess...

I know a lot of folks agree with you. I don't think so. Wiseman was told to sit because of the money changing hands. We were already in trouble and would already have gotten some penalty. I'm not sure Wiseman playing really matters at all. That wasn't the initial violation.

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:00 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:56 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

That has to be a good thing right ?

This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

(06-27-2022 02:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:00 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:56 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...729073001/

So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

That has to be a good thing right ?

This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

The key testimony from Memphis witnesses would be the timeline of hiring Penny.

If Penny had actively pursued the job, or the University had actively pursued Penny prior to Penny helping Wiseman, then we're screwed perhaps more than people expect.

If none of that happened until AFTER Penny helped Wiseman, then the Memphis testimony should establish that fact. Then you may have a booster helping a kid, but you don't have the incoming coach doing it. That's two totally different things.

(06-27-2022 02:05 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  Others have followed this saga more than me and may be able to shed light on this for me.

I've heard that we are facing stiff penalties because we were informed by the NCAA that Wiseman was "likely ineligible" and played him anyway. People say this was a bad move and that it was an affront to the NCAA. But the NCAA is the governing body that determines eligibility, so they had the power to declare him ineligible pending an investigation and thereby tell us definitely that we could not play Wiseman. They didn't do that. They used the term "likely ineligible", the implication being that if we played him and he was subsequently found to be ineligible, we would be subject to the usual penalties like those that were applied when Derrick Rose was declared ineligible after the fact...vacated wins for example.

How can you be subject to extra punishment for not heeding a recommendation from the NCAA vs. what you would have gotten if no recommendation was given?
It's like you're driving 50 in a 40 zone, a cop pulls you over and gives you a warning. If you immediately start driving 50 again and the cop pulls you over a second time, does he get to cuff you and take you to jail instead of issuing you the customary fine?

It seems to me among the investigation into Wiseman, they dug around enough to find some dirt. Seem to be throwing as much mud as possible in the case something might actually stick.

(06-27-2022 02:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:00 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 01:56 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  So the complex case unit did not want us to present certain witnesses but they were allowed in by the resolutions panel.

That has to be a good thing right ?

This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

The key testimony from Memphis witnesses would be the timeline of hiring Penny.

If Penny had actively pursued the job, or the University had actively pursued Penny prior to Penny helping Wiseman, then we're screwed perhaps more than people expect.

If none of that happened until AFTER Penny helped Wiseman, then the Memphis testimony should establish that fact. Then you may have a booster helping a kid, but you don't have the incoming coach doing it. That's two totally different things.

They're saying Penny is considered a booster since he donated a large sum of money to the university in the 2000's.

(06-27-2022 02:27 PM)TigerFan38134 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:00 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  That has to be a good thing right ?

This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

The key testimony from Memphis witnesses would be the timeline of hiring Penny.

If Penny had actively pursued the job, or the University had actively pursued Penny prior to Penny helping Wiseman, then we're screwed perhaps more than people expect.

If none of that happened until AFTER Penny helped Wiseman, then the Memphis testimony should establish that fact. Then you may have a booster helping a kid, but you don't have the incoming coach doing it. That's two totally different things.

They're saying Penny is considered a booster since he donated a large sum of money to the university in the 2000's.

I know that, but once the investigation opened you know damn well an investigator is going right after the coaching timeline. There's blood in the water and the NCAA let loose a shark.

(06-27-2022 02:43 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:27 PM)TigerFan38134 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  This has been going on for over 2 years, but the NCAA objected to taking a few more days to hear all of the evidence.

True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

The key testimony from Memphis witnesses would be the timeline of hiring Penny.

If Penny had actively pursued the job, or the University had actively pursued Penny prior to Penny helping Wiseman, then we're screwed perhaps more than people expect.

If none of that happened until AFTER Penny helped Wiseman, then the Memphis testimony should establish that fact. Then you may have a booster helping a kid, but you don't have the incoming coach doing it. That's two totally different things.

They're saying Penny is considered a booster since he donated a large sum of money to the university in the 2000's.

I know that, but once the investigation opened you know damn well an investigator is going right after the coaching timeline. There's blood in the water and the NCAA let loose a shark.

I misread the post I replied to. But you're correct, IF Penny had been contacted by Memphis prior to helping Wiseman, than this could be really bad. I don't know Penny personally, but from what I have seen tells me he is smart enough to have not given Wiseman $ if he was already thinking about going to Memphis and possibly recruiting him to go there too. I don't see Penny as the type to need to financially incentivize top talent to come play for him.

(06-27-2022 02:53 PM)TigerFan38134 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:43 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:27 PM)TigerFan38134 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  True, it appears the complex case unit in Memphis had an adversarial relationship throughout this. Memphis is also contending the complex case unit investigators exceeded their Authority. Wonder what the Memphis Witnesses brought?

The key testimony from Memphis witnesses would be the timeline of hiring Penny.

If Penny had actively pursued the job, or the University had actively pursued Penny prior to Penny helping Wiseman, then we're screwed perhaps more than people expect.

If none of that happened until AFTER Penny helped Wiseman, then the Memphis testimony should establish that fact. Then you may have a booster helping a kid, but you don't have the incoming coach doing it. That's two totally different things.

They're saying Penny is considered a booster since he donated a large sum of money to the university in the 2000's.

I know that, but once the investigation opened you know damn well an investigator is going right after the coaching timeline. There's blood in the water and the NCAA let loose a shark.

I misread the post I replied to. But you're correct, IF Penny had been contacted by Memphis prior to helping Wiseman, than this could be really bad. I don't know Penny personally, but from what I have seen tells me he is smart enough to have not given Wiseman $ if he was already thinking about going to Memphis and possibly recruiting him to go there too. I don't see Penny as the type to need to financially incentivize top talent to come play for him.

And if he was he would have been smart enough to not write a check. I never have understood this. He didn’t hide anything. On the other hand you got Bill Self and the LSU coach caught in lies