Well, we now have 3 cases to be reviewed by the Independent Board.
Let's compare how each case is handled.

link

Straight from the article, right off the bat...

Kansas

Quote:The case hinges on whether representatives of apparel company Adidas were acting as boosters when two of them arranged payments to prospective recruits.

Make the necessary adjustment and apply the same standard to our case...

Memphis
The case hinges on whether Penny Hardaway was acting as a booster when he arranged the payment to James Wiseman's mother.

James Wiseman - Kentucky
DJ Jeffries - Kentucky
Alex Lomax - Wichita State
Ryan Boyce - UAB
Malcolm Dandridge - No Memphis offer or visit

IF Kansas' case hinges on that, ours better be hinging on that also. IF Kansas argues that they were oblivious; Memphis and Tubby were beyond oblivious.

(07-02-2020 12:16 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Straight from the article, right off the bat...

Kansas

Quote:The case hinges on whether representatives of apparel company Adidas were acting as boosters when two of them arranged payments to prospective recruits.

Make the necessary adjustment and apply the same standard to our case...

Memphis
The case hinges on whether Penny Hardaway was acting as a booster when he arranged the payment to James Wiseman's mother.

James Wiseman - Kentucky
DJ Jeffries - Kentucky
Alex Lomax - Wichita State
Ryan Boyce - UAB
Malcolm Dandridge - No Memphis offer or visit

IF Kansas' case hinges on that, ours better be hinging on that also. IF Kansas argues that they were oblivious; Memphis and Tubby were beyond oblivious.

That has been the sticking point for me too. When Penny helped the Wiseman family move to Memphis, there was no chance that James was going to sign with the current (Tubby) coaching staff. To say that Penny gave the Wiseman family money to somehow eventually persuade James to attend a University that he would eventually coach is speculative at best. To say that Penny gave James moving money so that he would play for East High School is a TSSAA or SCS issue only. If the Darrell Arthur issue is a high school issue, then how is the James Wiseman issue an NCAA issue?

(07-02-2020 12:51 AM)Trapper John Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:16 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Straight from the article, right off the bat...

Kansas

Quote:The case hinges on whether representatives of apparel company Adidas were acting as boosters when two of them arranged payments to prospective recruits.

Make the necessary adjustment and apply the same standard to our case...

Memphis
The case hinges on whether Penny Hardaway was acting as a booster when he arranged the payment to James Wiseman's mother.

James Wiseman - Kentucky
DJ Jeffries - Kentucky
Alex Lomax - Wichita State
Ryan Boyce - UAB
Malcolm Dandridge - No Memphis offer or visit

IF Kansas' case hinges on that, ours better be hinging on that also. IF Kansas argues that they were oblivious; Memphis and Tubby were beyond oblivious.

That has been the sticking point for me too. When Penny helped the Wiseman family move to Memphis, there was no chance that James was going to sign with the current (Tubby) coaching staff. To say that Penny gave the Wiseman family money to somehow eventually persuade James to attend a University that he would eventually coach is speculative at best. To say that Penny gave James moving money so that he would play for East High School is a TSSAA or SCS issue only. If the Darrell Arthur issue is a high school issue, then how is the James Wiseman issue an NCAA issue?

Good Summary. Thanks for bringing some clarity.

(07-02-2020 12:44 PM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:51 AM)Trapper John Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:16 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Straight from the article, right off the bat...

Kansas

Quote:The case hinges on whether representatives of apparel company Adidas were acting as boosters when two of them arranged payments to prospective recruits.

Make the necessary adjustment and apply the same standard to our case...

Memphis
The case hinges on whether Penny Hardaway was acting as a booster when he arranged the payment to James Wiseman's mother.

James Wiseman - Kentucky
DJ Jeffries - Kentucky
Alex Lomax - Wichita State
Ryan Boyce - UAB
Malcolm Dandridge - No Memphis offer or visit

IF Kansas' case hinges on that, ours better be hinging on that also. IF Kansas argues that they were oblivious; Memphis and Tubby were beyond oblivious.

That has been the sticking point for me too. When Penny helped the Wiseman family move to Memphis, there was no chance that James was going to sign with the current (Tubby) coaching staff. To say that Penny gave the Wiseman family money to somehow eventually persuade James to attend a University that he would eventually coach is speculative at best. To say that Penny gave James moving money so that he would play for East High School is a TSSAA or SCS issue only. If the Darrell Arthur issue is a high school issue, then how is the James Wiseman issue an NCAA issue?

Good Summary. Thanks for bringing some clarity.

It is a good point...

He definitely wasn't trying to help Tubby recruit him.

(07-02-2020 12:51 AM)Trapper John Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:16 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Straight from the article, right off the bat...

Kansas

Quote:The case hinges on whether representatives of apparel company Adidas were acting as boosters when two of them arranged payments to prospective recruits.

Make the necessary adjustment and apply the same standard to our case...

Memphis
The case hinges on whether Penny Hardaway was acting as a booster when he arranged the payment to James Wiseman's mother.

James Wiseman - Kentucky
DJ Jeffries - Kentucky
Alex Lomax - Wichita State
Ryan Boyce - UAB
Malcolm Dandridge - No Memphis offer or visit

IF Kansas' case hinges on that, ours better be hinging on that also. IF Kansas argues that they were oblivious; Memphis and Tubby were beyond oblivious.

That has been the sticking point for me too. When Penny helped the Wiseman family move to Memphis, there was no chance that James was going to sign with the current (Tubby) coaching staff. To say that Penny gave the Wiseman family money to somehow eventually persuade James to attend a University that he would eventually coach is speculative at best. To say that Penny gave James moving money so that he would play for East High School is a TSSAA or SCS issue only. If the Darrell Arthur issue is a high school issue, then how is the James Wiseman issue an NCAA issue?

That's the problem with the NCAA's vague bylaws. They can interpret them however they want, but they aren't being called out on this enough.

A. Penny is considered a booster because of one donation years ago which the bylaws at the time were only saying indefinitely.

B. Wiseman's mother receives money and then Wiseman goes to play for Penny.

NCAA eventually decides Wiseman is ineligible for going to play for a booster that gave his family money. Point A and B clearly leaves out details, some of which you mention, but with the way the bylaws are written the NCAA is free to ignore details as they see fit.

When Alonzo Mourning was either a sophomore or junior in high school, I bought the young man and a teammate a burger and fries when they came to the office where I worked. He went to Georgetown and eventually the NBA. I had given some money to the school (nothing near the sum Hardaway gave to Memphis). Following the NCAA logic, Mourning should have been declare ineligible, right? I could have been viewed as a Georgetown booster and gave a gift to a kid who eventually went there. At the time of the gift, neither Mourning nor I knew he was going to accept a scholarship to Georgetown. I know the scale is vastly different, but it seems the logic is spot on.

(07-02-2020 01:10 PM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  When Alonzo Mourning was either a sophomore or junior in high school, I bought the young man and a teammate a burger and fries when they came to the office where I worked. He went to Georgetown and eventually the NBA. I had given some money to the school (nothing near the sum Hardaway gave to Memphis). Following the NCAA logic, Mourning should have been declare ineligible, right? I could have been viewed as a Georgetown booster and gave a gift to a kid who eventually went there. At the time of the gift, neither Mourning nor I knew he was going to accept a scholarship to Georgetown. I know the scale is vastly different, but it seems the logic is spot on.

There is a ton of gray area in the Wiseman Memphis case.

There are also exceptions in the bylaws that allow a parent of a teammate to provide assistance to a player.

Wiseman and Hardaway played together.

But the bottom line is Hardaway knew better...He knew he was breaking at least the TSAA rules and shouldn't have done it.

(07-02-2020 01:10 PM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  When Alonzo Mourning was either a sophomore or junior in high school, I bought the young man and a teammate a burger and fries when they came to the office where I worked. He went to Georgetown and eventually the NBA. I had given some money to the school (nothing near the sum Hardaway gave to Memphis). Following the NCAA logic, Mourning should have been declare ineligible, right? I could have been viewed as a Georgetown booster and gave a gift to a kid who eventually went there. At the time of the gift, neither Mourning nor I knew he was going to accept a scholarship to Georgetown. I know the scale is vastly different, but it seems the logic is spot on.

From the things I've seen in the bylaws, possibly yes. But they probably would have let it go if they knew about it.

(07-02-2020 01:17 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:10 PM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  When Alonzo Mourning was either a sophomore or junior in high school, I bought the young man and a teammate a burger and fries when they came to the office where I worked. He went to Georgetown and eventually the NBA. I had given some money to the school (nothing near the sum Hardaway gave to Memphis). Following the NCAA logic, Mourning should have been declare ineligible, right? I could have been viewed as a Georgetown booster and gave a gift to a kid who eventually went there. At the time of the gift, neither Mourning nor I knew he was going to accept a scholarship to Georgetown. I know the scale is vastly different, but it seems the logic is spot on.

There is a ton of gray area in the Wiseman Memphis case.

There are also exceptions in the bylaws that allow a parent of a teammate to provide assistance to a player.

Wiseman and Hardaway played together.

But the bottom line is Hardaway knew better...He knew he was breaking at least the TSAA rules and shouldn't have done it.

He also reported it and James was cleared. Then later deemed likely ineligible.