(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:17 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  Hire the law firm used by Kansas or UNC. Dump the chumps.

Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:17 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  Hire the law firm used by Kansas or UNC. Dump the chumps.

Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

(03-09-2020 12:34 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

I don't understand what you are talking about. The NCAA doesn't give a crap what happens to players after they leave. The main thing is to be able to f**k up a school just because and let others off scot free.

The NCAA got what they wanted. They dealt with us in a completely unfair an spiteful manner, completely inconsistent with how they deal with other schools that do things 100X worse. This process was created specifically to deal with garbage like that.

(03-09-2020 01:35 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:34 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

I don't understand what you are talking about. The NCAA doesn't give a crap what happens to players after they leave. The main thing is to be able to f**k up a school just because and let others off scot free.

The NCAA got what they wanted. They dealt with us in a completely unfair an spiteful manner, completely inconsistent with how they deal with other schools that do things 100X worse. This process was created specifically to deal with garbage like that.

I dont think it was created to deal with garbage like that...

I think it is a PR move by the NCAA, now they still get what they want but they can distance themselves and say that it wasnt their decision, it was the independant committee. Kinda like God and the Devil.... If it is good it is the NCAA, if it is bad, it is that goshdurn committee.

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:17 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  Hire the law firm used by Kansas or UNC. Dump the chumps.

Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

(03-09-2020 02:28 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:35 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:34 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

I don't understand what you are talking about. The NCAA doesn't give a crap what happens to players after they leave. The main thing is to be able to f**k up a school just because and let others off scot free.

The NCAA got what they wanted. They dealt with us in a completely unfair an spiteful manner, completely inconsistent with how they deal with other schools that do things 100X worse. This process was created specifically to deal with garbage like that.

I dont think it was created to deal with garbage like that...

I think it is a PR move by the NCAA, now they still get what they want but they can distance themselves and say that it wasnt their decision, it was the independant committee. Kinda like God and the Devil.... If it is good it is the NCAA, if it is bad, it is that goshdurn committee.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. There are the presidents of Kentucky and Texas State, Grant Hill and two members with no affiliation. I would have to think that since NBA players have come out unanimously against the NCAA that there will be peer pressure and common sense putting Grant Hill on our side. Denis McDonough is a former Obama staffer. Do you somehow think that he or the 19th Surgeon General of the USA are NCAA shills?

Do you think that any of the panelists decided to volunteer their time so they could stick it to kids like James Wiseman? Do you think any of the panelists are going to think it is fair to say he will be eligible then decide right before the season that he isn't? Do you think any of the panelists will think that it makes any sense to have Wiseman pay back a loan he never received?

Do you think that the panelists will think that it was fair of the NCAA to say that Memphis was opening itself to additional punishment, when we were co defendants and had no choice to play him?

Do you think any of the panelists will think that we got an unfair advantage from Penny steering Wiseman to Kentucky, Lomax to Wichita State, DJ to Kentucky and Boyce to UAB?

It might work out, it might not, but this panel was created specifically to make examples out of schools like Memphis; the good kind.

(03-09-2020 03:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:17 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  Hire the law firm used by Kansas or UNC. Dump the chumps.

Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

If it didn't happen to us it would be hilarious. The Kansas AD says that they knew nothing about it and the case is closed; Lippman agrees that Rose might be hypothetically ineligible even though Rose is never interviewed, there is no proof and the university was given the green light to play him.

(03-09-2020 03:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:17 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  Hire the law firm used by Kansas or UNC. Dump the chumps.

Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

Rose made it easy for the NCAA to act harsley in his case. ACT received what they considered credible information (just from a suspect source) that he had not taken the ACT himself but had someone posing as him. Rose first took the SAT and scored poorly, meaning below the standards required for NCAA eligibility. Then Rose (or his agent) in a location away from home took the ACT yielding a much higher score. ACT did not have specific knowledge of the SAT score since the two agencies do not share information. When they received the jailhouse stooly information it opened the door to take into account in the significant disparity of scores and the likelihood that Rose's agent and not Rose took the ACT.

The standard actions from testing agencies is to seek clarification of circumstances so they can review and determine a remedy. The letter was sent to Rose at his Chicago Address as was a second attempt. Rose was in Memphis playing his way to the championship game in the tourney. With no response from Rose ACT invalidated the score due to suspension of testing impropriety and failure to respond to inquiries. Normal reactions would be for family to say D, you got a registered letter here from the ACT organization. It looks important, we had to sign for it. We need to open it and see what they want. But I've seen worse reactions.

With the ACT act of invalidating his score that made him ineligible to play the NCAA was free to pass judgment that all games he played in could be forfeited since without the ACT score he would have never been eligible based on his SAT score.

A typical review would be for a Student to provide evidence he actually took the exam. If so the student has to address dramatic differences in scores ( I paid a tutor). If he is not cleared with those two steps he would have been offered the opportunity to retest at no cost to the student (which I think ultimately was offered). Rose had no reason to to respond from a personal standpoint being on his way to be a millionaire NBA player and his only response (I think) was to once deny the allegations. The NCAA could laugh that one off. They didn't have to defend any of their actions because Rose defaulted to their decision by nonaction.

Did it suck? Absolutely. Was there any other outcome that could have occured? Not for the Rose decision. the only question was how severe Memphis would get hit. We got Thor's Hammer.

(03-09-2020 04:49 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

Rose made it easy for the NCAA to act harsley in his case. ACT received what they considered credible information (just from a suspect source) that he had not taken the ACT himself but had someone posing as him. Rose first took the SAT and scored poorly, meaning below the standards required for NCAA eligibility. Then Rose (or his agent) in a location away from home took the ACT yielding a much higher score. ACT did not have specific knowledge of the SAT score since the two agencies do not share information. When they received the jailhouse stooly information it opened the door to take into account in the significant disparity of scores and the likelihood that Rose's agent and not Rose took the ACT.

The standard actions from testing agencies is to seek clarification of circumstances so they can review and determine a remedy. The letter was sent to Rose at his Chicago Address as was a second attempt. Rose was in Memphis playing his way to the championship game in the tourney. With no response from Rose ACT invalidated the score due to suspension of testing impropriety and failure to respond to inquiries. Normal reactions would be for family to say D, you got a registered letter here from the ACT organization. It looks important, we had to sign for it. We need to open it and see what they want. But I've seen worse reactions.

With the ACT act of invalidating his score that made him eligible to play the NCAA was free to pass judgment that all games he played in could be forfeited since without the ACT score he would have never been eligible based on his SAT score.

A typical review would be for a Student to provide evidence he actually took the exam. If so the student has to address dramatic differences in scores ( I paid a tutor). If he is not cleared with those two steps he would have been offered the opportunity to retest at no cost to the student (which I think ultimately was offered). Rose had no reason to to respond from a personal standpoint being on his way to be a millionaire NBA player and his only response (I think) was to once deny the allegations. The NCAA could laugh that one off. They didn't have to defend any of their actions because Rose defaulted to their decision by nonaction.

Did it suck? Absolutely. Was there any other outcome that could have occured? Not for the Rose decision. the only question was how severe Memphis would get hit. We got Thor's Hammer.

If you only look at it from the perspective of player behavior AFTER the NCAA called them out, you'd probably say that Wiseman filing the lawsuit made him the "better" man. The way I look at it, Rose had the Tiger basketball team's interests at heart for 40 games and, if he'd sunk one more FT, would've helped us win our first NC. Wiseman went 2-1 and cut out halfway through being reinstated. Big difference.

I have a hope of a fair hearing.
They are officially a separate entity from the NCAA.
They have no obligation to side with or fear to deal repercussions if a decision goes against the NCAA.
This group is heavy arbitration background. I'm talking at the highest level. They are accustomed to rooting out the legal and equitable resolution to a conflict.
They hand out decisions with no fear of repercussions from powerful organizations.
The NCAA has some clear exposure for capricious practices.
The NCAA cleared Wisemena to play while having the information regarding the potential offense even though the offense was not a direct act when either Wiseman or Hardaway where enrolled/employed by the university. They had a chance to correct what they call a mistake and chose not to. Even in their attempt to Correct their so called error ( Why did it come up again) they chose not to use declarative language but instead chose the word "likely" which actually has no meaning only intent to control. But later still acted with absolutes. The injunction which ceased enforcement by the NCAA placed Hardaway in a situation where if he did not play Wiseman he could face exposure in court for acting as an agent of the NCAA in defying a legal decision by James. There is no grounds to not play the #1 player in the country other than to have acted as an agent of the NCAA or he felt coerced to act in that manner.

There are a lot of spokes in this wheel and I think there is room for a light touch on the decision. The only harmed parties here are James and potential Hardaway and the University depending on the outcome.

(03-09-2020 05:10 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  I have a hope of a fair hearing.
They are officially a separate entity from the NCAA.
They have no obligation to side with or fear to deal repercussions if a decision goes against the NCAA.
This group is heavy arbitration background. I'm talking at the highest level. They are accustomed to rooting out the legal and equitable resolution to a conflict.
They hand out decisions with no fear of repercussions from powerful organizations.
The NCAA has some clear exposure for capricious practices.
The NCAA cleared Wisemena to play while having the information regarding the potential offense even though the offense was not a direct act when either Wiseman or Hardaway where enrolled/employed by the university. They had a chance to correct what they call a mistake and chose not to. Even in their attempt to Correct their so called error ( Why did it come up again) they chose not to use declarative language but instead chose the word "likely" which actually has no meaning only intent to control. But later still acted with absolutes. The injunction which ceased enforcement by the NCAA placed Hardaway in a situation where if he did not play Wiseman he could face exposure in court for acting as an agent of the NCAA in defying a legal decision by James. There is no grounds to not play the #1 player in the country other than to have acted as an agent of the NCAA or he felt coerced to act in that manner.

There are a lot of spokes in this wheel and I think there is room for a light touch on the decision. The only harmed parties here are James and potential Hardaway and the University depending on the outcome.

I agree with your assessment and think whatever happens will be a better outcome than we could've reasonably expected from the COI. Maybe that's not true, but it's my take. My only point earlier was that, with Rose, it was worth it. With Wiseman, not so much.

(03-09-2020 01:35 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:34 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

I don't understand what you are talking about. The NCAA doesn't give a crap what happens to players after they leave. The main thing is to be able to f**k up a school just because and let others off scot free.

The NCAA got what they wanted. They dealt with us in a completely unfair an spiteful manner, completely inconsistent with how they deal with other schools that do things 100X worse. This process was created specifically to deal with garbage like that.

That's the point I was making. They don't hurt the players, they are gone they just hurt the school.

(03-09-2020 06:44 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:35 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:34 PM)Antonio5fan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 06:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  I predict we will get whatever drags out the longest and hurts our recruiting the most.

I’m a very positive guy, but the NCAA, well...

Glad to hear someone who believes as I do. The NCAA has burr under their saddle because their punishment of Wiseman was to no avail as far as he's concerned and they didn't hurt Derrick Rose in the least, just the University. They will have their new "posse" dig as much as possible. No doubt in my mind. They won't vacate any wins unless we win the Conference tourney and make a run in the dance, but could hurt recruiting by probation of any post season games for as long as "they" deem appropriate.

I don't understand what you are talking about. The NCAA doesn't give a crap what happens to players after they leave. The main thing is to be able to f**k up a school just because and let others off scot free.

The NCAA got what they wanted. They dealt with us in a completely unfair an spiteful manner, completely inconsistent with how they deal with other schools that do things 100X worse. This process was created specifically to deal with garbage like that.

That's the point I was making. They don't hurt the players, they are gone they just hurt the school.

Sorry if I misread it.

(03-09-2020 04:59 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 04:49 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

Rose made it easy for the NCAA to act harsley in his case. ACT received what they considered credible information (just from a suspect source) that he had not taken the ACT himself but had someone posing as him. Rose first took the SAT and scored poorly, meaning below the standards required for NCAA eligibility. Then Rose (or his agent) in a location away from home took the ACT yielding a much higher score. ACT did not have specific knowledge of the SAT score since the two agencies do not share information. When they received the jailhouse stooly information it opened the door to take into account in the significant disparity of scores and the likelihood that Rose's agent and not Rose took the ACT.

The standard actions from testing agencies is to seek clarification of circumstances so they can review and determine a remedy. The letter was sent to Rose at his Chicago Address as was a second attempt. Rose was in Memphis playing his way to the championship game in the tourney. With no response from Rose ACT invalidated the score due to suspension of testing impropriety and failure to respond to inquiries. Normal reactions would be for family to say D, you got a registered letter here from the ACT organization. It looks important, we had to sign for it. We need to open it and see what they want. But I've seen worse reactions.

With the ACT act of invalidating his score that made him ineligible to play the NCAA was free to pass judgment that all games he played in could be forfeited since without the ACT score he would have never been eligible based on his SAT score.

A typical review would be for a Student to provide evidence he actually took the exam. If so the student has to address dramatic differences in scores ( I paid a tutor). If he is not cleared with those two steps he would have been offered the opportunity to retest at no cost to the student (which I think ultimately was offered). Rose had no reason to to respond from a personal standpoint being on his way to be a millionaire NBA player and his only response (I think) was to once deny the allegations. The NCAA could laugh that one off. They didn't have to defend any of their actions because Rose defaulted to their decision by nonaction.

Did it suck? Absolutely. Was there any other outcome that could have occured? Not for the Rose decision. the only question was how severe Memphis would get hit. We got Thor's Hammer.

If you only look at it from the perspective of player behavior AFTER the NCAA called them out, you'd probably say that Wiseman filing the lawsuit made him the "better" man. The way I look at it, Rose had the Tiger basketball team's interests at heart for 40 games and, if he'd sunk one more FT, would've helped us win our first NC. Wiseman went 2-1 and cut out halfway through being reinstated. Big difference.

No, I wouldn’t say that. Not sure how you could be so far off. In fact nothing I said had anything to do with Wiseman. I only addressed a comment on Rose and Kansas.

(03-09-2020 04:49 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:11 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:14 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:42 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:37 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Didn't we use the same attorney for D.Rose that Kansas used for D.Arthur?

lol.

Believe I read that here. You saying it's not true?

No. I don't know. Just thought found it funny we get hammered in the Rose deal and KS moves along. The only difference is leadership at the top.

Rose made it easy for the NCAA to act harsley in his case. ACT received what they considered credible information (just from a suspect source) that he had not taken the ACT himself but had someone posing as him. Rose first took the SAT and scored poorly, meaning below the standards required for NCAA eligibility. Then Rose (or his agent) in a location away from home took the ACT yielding a much higher score. ACT did not have specific knowledge of the SAT score since the two agencies do not share information. When they received the jailhouse stooly information it opened the door to take into account in the significant disparity of scores and the likelihood that Rose's agent and not Rose took the ACT.

The standard actions from testing agencies is to seek clarification of circumstances so they can review and determine a remedy. The letter was sent to Rose at his Chicago Address as was a second attempt. Rose was in Memphis playing his way to the championship game in the tourney. With no response from Rose ACT invalidated the score due to suspension of testing impropriety and failure to respond to inquiries. Normal reactions would be for family to say D, you got a registered letter here from the ACT organization. It looks important, we had to sign for it. We need to open it and see what they want. But I've seen worse reactions.

With the ACT act of invalidating his score that made him ineligible to play the NCAA was free to pass judgment that all games he played in could be forfeited since without the ACT score he would have never been eligible based on his SAT score.

A typical review would be for a Student to provide evidence he actually took the exam. If so the student has to address dramatic differences in scores ( I paid a tutor). If he is not cleared with those two steps he would have been offered the opportunity to retest at no cost to the student (which I think ultimately was offered). Rose had no reason to to respond from a personal standpoint being on his way to be a millionaire NBA player and his only response (I think) was to once deny the allegations. The NCAA could laugh that one off. They didn't have to defend any of their actions because Rose defaulted to their decision by nonaction.

Did it suck? Absolutely. Was there any other outcome that could have occured? Not for the Rose decision. the only question was how severe Memphis would get hit. We got Thor's Hammer.

Quote:Rose made it easy for the NCAA to act harsley in his case.

The agent admitting that he gave money to Corey Maggette, and the jeweller that said that Lance Thomas owed him $68,000 from a $100,000 purchase made while he was at Duke, made it super tough for the NCAA to act harshly. Also, just a slight btw, this is one of the exact reasons why this process was created. It was built for us.

Pure nonsense.

Who Are The NCAA Shills?
President of Kentucky - Maybe, but doubtful; Kentucky might need the IARP in the future
President of Texas State - I doubt it
Obama Staffer - No
19th Surgeon General Of The US - No
Grant Hill - Uhhhhh...No

(03-11-2020 08:04 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Who Are The NCAA Shills?
President of Kentucky - Maybe, but doubtful; Kentucky might need the IARP in the future
President of Texas State - I doubt it
Obama Staffer - No
19th Surgeon General Of The US - No
Grant Hill - Uhhhhh...No

Perfect. If we do not get a favorable ruling we can still blame this on Obama...

I still believe Wiseman should sue the NCAA. His career was damaged by their incompetence. That's pretty cut and dry.

They offered him no compensation for their mistake. They could have allowed an immediate transfer, but did they make that offer? I don't think so.

The school's hands are somewhat tied, but Wiseman has nothing to lose, everything to gain, and the money to do it.

(03-08-2020 06:25 PM)yakko Wrote:  I was always under the belief that part of joining the NCAA was agreeing to go through their arbitration process and waiving their right to sue.

I believe this correct for member institutions. Does not apply to individuals. If Penny is hit with a show cause, he has every right (and financial means) to sue the NCAA.