(03-06-2020 09:57 AM)ZachMan Wrote:  It says the school's request has been granted, how much clearer can that be

That part of the story was removed. Again, see post above showing the edit.

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts.

It becomes a form over substance argument. If you do not play him you are effectively suspending him. No, you have not formally suspended him but for all intents and purposes you would have.

We are not talking about a borderline player who a coach would have a reasonable basis for not playing. Outside of not playing him due to the NCAA concerns there would be absolutely no reason Penny would not have played him, ala lack of skill or ability to contribute.

That is the argument Memphis will make, whether it will stand up or not will be interesting.

Kansas will get hit with something. Unsure on LSU and AZ

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I said this in another thread, and I'm gonna say it again here. JW was deemed "likely ineligible". Not "ineligible". He either is or isn't ineligible. If he's "likely ineligible" then he's still eligible. Can't get much clearer than that to me. We didn't play an ineligible player. We played a "likely ineligible" player after the NCAA reneged on a prior agreement that he would continue to remain eligible. After the season started and he was already enrolled at Memphis and had no other recourse. He got royally screwed by the NCAA , and he's really got grounds to sue the bejeezus out of them.

This whole thing is complete BS.

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts.

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

If you bench the #1 player in the country you would have been held in contempt of court because that would be viewed as enforcing the suspension

(03-06-2020 02:36 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

If you bench the #1 player in the country you would have been held in contempt of court because that would be viewed as enforcing the suspension

Incorrect. Wiseman received a temporary restraining order that allowed him to play...it did not mandate that Memphis play him. Choosing to not play him would not have violated the restraining order.

(03-06-2020 08:44 AM)3usersonline Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:12 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:09 AM)3usersonline Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 11:26 PM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...tball-team

Looks like Memphis will have some company awaiting a ruling from the NCAA’s independent accountability committee. Of course Kansas denies it committed any violation and that it’s coach was totally unaware of any cheating. That’s might be surprising to those who were convicted by a jury of wrongdoing.

The Independent Accountability Resolution Process is set-up to handle select complex infractions cases.

Dating back to investigations and allegations that started in 2018, Kansas' case - which involves a federal investigation, wire tipes, shoe company ties, multiple alleged payments, a Late Night in the Phog event that spit in the face of the NCAA and a 300+ page response from the school - has not been referred to the IARP YET.

As of today, it will be handled by the normal NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. Of course that could change. But today, almost two years after their investigations and allegations jump-started, they are still going through a back-and-forth with the normal infractions committee.

Starting in late October/early November 2019 (5 months ago), Memphis' case involving a single, admitted payment to a student athlete (JW) by a coach (PH) prior to his hiring at Memphis and a court order to keep the SA eligible was almost immediately referred to the IARP.

Y'all know where this is headed. Because, well, it's "complex."

My understanding is that this was not "referred" to the IARP by the infractions committee but rather that we requested the IARP handle it instead of the infractions committee. IMO that is a pretty major distinction.

Not correct.

When you say not correct, I am assuming that you mean that he is exactly right (which he is).

(03-06-2020 10:47 AM)Tigerdawg Wrote:  I said this in another thread, and I'm gonna say it again here. JW was deemed "likely ineligible". Not "ineligible". He either is or isn't ineligible. If he's "likely ineligible" then he's still eligible. Can't get much clearer than that to me. We didn't play an ineligible player. We played a "likely ineligible" player after the NCAA reneged on a prior agreement that he would continue to remain eligible. After the season started and he was already enrolled at Memphis and had no other recourse. He got royally screwed by the NCAA , and he's really got grounds to sue the bejeezus out of them.

This whole thing is complete BS.

That's the part I don't understand. Wiseman was said to be "likely ineligible." At some point the NCAA decided through whatever investigation it did to indeed declare him ineligible. We know this because of the punishment that handed down - the 12 game suspension. Until they officially declared him as ineligible, how can they say he was ineligible? And how can they punish a coach or a university for playing a player that had not yet been declared ineligible?

If they ultimately find Will Wade guilty of breaking rules, will LSU get severely punished for using a coach that they knew was under investigation. Because that was basically what Wiseman was - he was a player under investigation. And the investigation finished with a finding and a ruling and a punishment that Wiseman, the coaches, and the university accepted and followed.

(03-06-2020 10:04 AM)cmt Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

This is how they win, somehow you believe, though inconsistent, the NCAA is fair. They got you. The NCAA is not fair, their inconsistency hides their unfairness.

There will always be an anecdotal example of a big guy getting punished, but when you look at the body of work, Jerry Tarkanian said it best,“The NCAA was so mad at Kentucky they gave Cleveland State two more years of probation.”

One of the best quotes ever in basketball vernacular. Tark was ahead of his time on calling out the NCAA. He never gave up the fight regarding the disparity of the big blue bloods vs others. He particularly put it to KY and UCLA every chance he got and the love affair that the NCAA had in protecting those schools.

Tark eventually filed a harassment suit against the NCAA and actually won the long fight to the tune of $2.5M (out of court settlement) in 1998. That figure today would equate to an estimated $4M. The tenacity that Tark had should give everyone hope against the giant conglomerate called the NCAA.

Never give up....

GTG!

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts.

Your understanding seems to be the exact opposite of reality. It doesn't seem possible.

(03-06-2020 04:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts.

Your understanding seems to be the exact opposite of reality. It doesn't seem possible.

And your lack of understanding is so palpable is can be cut with a knife.

(03-06-2020 04:50 PM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 04:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:55 AM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:19 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:13 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  Do people forget that Silvio De Sousa sat out a whole year waiting on the NCAA? That was for accepting $2,500.

Enes Katner and Hamidu Diallo both were ineligible their freshman year at UK.

The NCAA is inconsistent, but they don't necessarily give those schools a pass.

We will be punished for playing an ineligible player. So would any other school.

You get punished for choosing to play an ineligible player...

We didn't choose to play Wiseman the courts compelled us to do so.

Two entirely different things.

The courts "compelled" us to play him? Did the courts also tell us how many minutes per game to play him? Just because the court issued an injunction doesn't mean the coach had to actually put him in the game. That was a decision, a choice, made by the administration and coaching staff...it had nothing to do with the courts.

Your understanding seems to be the exact opposite of reality. It doesn't seem possible.

And your lack of understanding is so palpable is can be cut with a knife.

The courts force us to play him and you say we don't have to play him. You think zero minutes complies with the court order. How is that possible?

How is it that you are able to word your response with the depth of an Air Supply/Michael Bolton ballad, but you can't read simple English?

This was the interesting paragraph to me in the Kansas article:

There's also a possibility the case will be resolved through NCAA's independent accountability resolution process, which the governing body created last year to handle high-profile cases involving potentially serious infractions. Independent investigators, advocates and decision-makers with no direct ties to NCAA member schools further investigate the case, if necessary, and then adjudicate a ruling. Under those procedures, there is no appeal to the independent resolution panel's ruling.

We better get a favorable opinion as there doesn't appear to be a way to appeal this process

(03-06-2020 05:09 PM)tigertaylor Wrote:  This was the interesting paragraph to me in the Kansas article:

There's also a possibility the case will be resolved through NCAA's independent accountability resolution process, which the governing body created last year to handle high-profile cases involving potentially serious infractions. Independent investigators, advocates and decision-makers with no direct ties to NCAA member schools further investigate the case, if necessary, and then adjudicate a ruling. Under those procedures, there is no appeal to the independent resolution panel's ruling.

We better get a favorable opinion as there doesn't appear to be a way to appeal this process

If there is no appeal process I would have to assume that you have to opt in, but who knows.

(03-06-2020 05:35 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:09 PM)tigertaylor Wrote:  This was the interesting paragraph to me in the Kansas article:

There's also a possibility the case will be resolved through NCAA's independent accountability resolution process, which the governing body created last year to handle high-profile cases involving potentially serious infractions. Independent investigators, advocates and decision-makers with no direct ties to NCAA member schools further investigate the case, if necessary, and then adjudicate a ruling. Under those procedures, there is no appeal to the independent resolution panel's ruling.

We better get a favorable opinion as there doesn't appear to be a way to appeal this process

If there is no appeal process I would have to assume that you have to opt in, but who knows.

And in my mind, that means that you are sure in your position and believe you are right. And whatever this outcome is, it is better than the outcome you would receive from the NCAA and their clown court.

(03-06-2020 05:51 PM)former guest Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:35 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:09 PM)tigertaylor Wrote:  This was the interesting paragraph to me in the Kansas article:

There's also a possibility the case will be resolved through NCAA's independent accountability resolution process, which the governing body created last year to handle high-profile cases involving potentially serious infractions. Independent investigators, advocates and decision-makers with no direct ties to NCAA member schools further investigate the case, if necessary, and then adjudicate a ruling. Under those procedures, there is no appeal to the independent resolution panel's ruling.

We better get a favorable opinion as there doesn't appear to be a way to appeal this process

If there is no appeal process I would have to assume that you have to opt in, but who knows.

And in my mind, that means that you are sure in your position and believe you are right. And whatever this outcome is, it is better than the outcome you would receive from the NCAA and their clown court.

It is common practice for "independent" arbiters rulings to be final. I imagine this was voted and agreed by member institutions after the Rice Report.

The "no appeal" does not concern me. Because do you really think we would get a favorable ruling from the NCAA on appeal anyway?

(03-06-2020 03:54 PM)Trapper John Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:47 AM)Tigerdawg Wrote:  I said this in another thread, and I'm gonna say it again here. JW was deemed "likely ineligible". Not "ineligible". He either is or isn't ineligible. If he's "likely ineligible" then he's still eligible. Can't get much clearer than that to me. We didn't play an ineligible player. We played a "likely ineligible" player after the NCAA reneged on a prior agreement that he would continue to remain eligible. After the season started and he was already enrolled at Memphis and had no other recourse. He got royally screwed by the NCAA , and he's really got grounds to sue the bejeezus out of them.

This whole thing is complete BS.

That's the part I don't understand. Wiseman was said to be "likely ineligible." At some point the NCAA decided through whatever investigation it did to indeed declare him ineligible. We know this because of the punishment that handed down - the 12 game suspension. Until they officially declared him as ineligible, how can they say he was ineligible? And how can they punish a coach or a university for playing a player that had not yet been declared ineligible?

If they ultimately find Will Wade guilty of breaking rules, will LSU get severely punished for using a coach that they knew was under investigation. Because that was basically what Wiseman was - he was a player under investigation. And the investigation finished with a finding and a ruling and a punishment that Wiseman, the coaches, and the university accepted and followed.

I don't get it either. Now the talking head gurus like GP and Bilas and Wolken will say that "likely ineligible" means ineligible. Its semantics due to the timing of the situation. The NCAA notifies that he is "likely ineligible" and then the school has to declare him ineligible and then appeal to the NCAA. Then they conduct their final investigation and issue their final ruling. That's what the "experts" say.

I say poppy-****. The NCAA is getting Penny/Wiseman on a complete technicality with connecting a donation made 12 years ago, to a payment made 2 years ago AS A HIGH SCHOOL COACH, to his play at Memphis. Penny may have technically been a booster - but he was not acting as a booster when he paid Donzelle. NCAA says it doesn't matter because the letter of the law. Well if that's the case, then their words should also matter. And that means "likely ineligible" does NOT equal "ineligible".

There is blame to be had on multiple levels. The "likely ineligible" was ridiculous. Such is the NCAA. He is eligible, or he is not. They blew it initially with declaring him eligible, then doing the "Oh, wait" BS.

Conversely, I have always believed JW should not have played. Plenty of folks loved it when we gave them the finger, without realizing it would bite us. You flex your muscle in the face of those bozos, you can't be surprised when it blows up backwards. That is what happened.

(03-09-2020 04:20 PM)Hoots Wrote:  There is blame to be had on multiple levels. The "likely ineligible" was ridiculous. Such is the NCAA. He is eligible, or he is not. They blew it initially with declaring him eligible, then doing the "Oh, wait" BS.

Conversely, I have always believed JW should not have played. Plenty of folks loved it when we gave them the finger, without realizing it would bite us. You flex your muscle in the face of those bozos, you can't be surprised when it blows up backwards. That is what happened.

IMO, the issue is that we did it and then immediately backed down. If you are going to do it then you have to see it through and we did not...

(03-09-2020 04:46 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 04:20 PM)Hoots Wrote:  There is blame to be had on multiple levels. The "likely ineligible" was ridiculous. Such is the NCAA. He is eligible, or he is not. They blew it initially with declaring him eligible, then doing the "Oh, wait" BS.

Conversely, I have always believed JW should not have played. Plenty of folks loved it when we gave them the finger, without realizing it would bite us. You flex your muscle in the face of those bozos, you can't be surprised when it blows up backwards. That is what happened.

IMO, the issue is that we did it and then immediately backed down. If you are going to do it then you have to see it through and we did not...

I agree on all counts with both of you.