I ran through my points pretty quickly. The good news was, since the University in its wisdom allowed only minimal carryover of points, by the end of the school year, I drank for free every night. People in use-it-or-lose-it mode bought beer after beer for total strangers. All you had to do was sit at their table.
This is probably what got back to Uncle Terry. During exams, you had people, IIRC mostly skinny females, that had lots of meal points left. The system was set up where you got back cents on the dollar for unused points. Someone would take one of these cards up to the bar at the CI and get a case of beers, all opened by the bartender. Then they got plopped down on tables and grabbed up by whoever came by. It got pretty ugly.
There was also a case of one guy that flunked out for the spring that year and came back for a visit. He tried his card and it worked even though he wasn't enrolled, so he bought a LOT of beer that weekend.
Yea, I was in grad school that year when meal "points" could be used to buy beer at the CI (and maybe other places too? I can't remember if beer was sold at other locations on campus?). I'm pretty sure that academic year may have set the record for the most on-campus consumption of beer (the legal drinking age was still 18, so almost everyone at Duke could drink legally). I believe that was also the first year of the new points plan for buying meals at Duke and that many parents had bought their kids way more points than what they really needed for food, so there were many people with a lot of points on their cards towards the end of the semester and they were more than glad to spend those points on beer for just about anyone who happened to be around (and I also remember big baskets of boiled shrimp) at the happy hours at the CI. Of course, it all came to a screeching halt after the Chronicle published a news story about the "points for beer" phenomenon and Uncle Terry put a screeching halt to the practice. I guess all good things have to come to an end. LOL.
I was one of those folks with extra points and did use some for beer. However, I also had many a meal at the Oak Room.
So anyway, back to the Louisville thing. Pitino is quoted again as having no knowledge. And I'm hearing him loud and clear: He had no idea.
But the vibe I'm getting from his statements is NOT, "This is a hoax for book money; I don't think it ever happened. Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof." Maybe the internal investigation doesn't allow him to draw conclusions yet, but the statements so far are not, "It didn't happen." Rather it's "I didn't know, and I don't know anyone who did." And he's not challenging anyone for proof, as though he knows now that something did happen.
My takeaway so far from this is that one-source reporting is incredibly dangerous, bordering on the irresponsible. But the shading by Pitino is troubling to me.
Per The Sporting News, co-author Dick Cady (a very reputable individual) is evidently refusing to turn over records to the NCAA, Louisville's internal consultant Chuck Smrt, or the Louisville Courier-Journal. He stands behind his forensic investigators' verification linking McGee (Louisville staffer) to Powell (Louisville escort), but appears unwilling to cooperate in any investigation. Interesting development. In an interview with the Courier-Journal, Cady says "My feeling is that they [U of L consultant Smrt & his staff] needed more groundwork before they could really jump into stuff. They need to read the book."
Sounds like this move could be a maneuver to sell more books, or simply a guy preferring not to do other people's work for them. Either way, Cady has put his and his company's reputation on the line for this book, so I imagine he's confident that the content is accurate.
On the "take it for what it's worth" tip, I've heard others with ties to credible Louisville athletics insiders who have taken the position that the information in the book isn't 100% accurate, but that most of it is. Not good for Louisville, if true.
This is not surprising at all given what we have learned from Mary Willingham. The way NCAA investigations work, if you provide the NCAA any information about violations a school has committed, the first thing they do is turn all of your info over to the accused school.
The relationship between the NCAA and the school during an investigation is not a true adversarial one like you might think it is.
A quick digression...
I can't see that guy's name without reflexively thinking of this scene from The Simpsons. Anyone else, or am I the only one?
"I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015
Y'all know what's really dirty about all this - from the press to DBR's article to the Card fans I suffer everyday - is the slut shaming and whore blaming laid on the escort and her family.
Look, she was providing a service that provided a living for her and her family. Her kids followed in her footsteps, like most family businesses. Yes, they sold sex. But who among you doesn't LOVE her product? And if it wasn't in demand, she'd be out of business. Do not criticize her in one breathe and praise the capitalism that "makes this country great" in the next.
Look 2.0, every campus has these services. Louisville is just a little more honest about it. We pay our hookers. Duke calls them duchesses, I think I read they got extra meal credits, no?
I'm just tickled that UofL is in the ACC now. You needed a new Maryland...
Everyone's looking for a reason to use the phrase "slut shaming" these days... not sure why you decided to tack on "whore blaming" -- I don't think that one's caught on yet. Honestly, most of the accounts I've read have focused more on what this may mean for Louisville's basketball program. The fact that there are prostitutes working in Louisville probably isn't very controversial.
The term "slut shaming" is ubiquitous because the practice is part and parcel with white male supremacy and we are calling it out for what it is.
If you could be so kind, we are a genteel town. It isn't prostitution. We call them love brokers.
And how exactly are your "duchesses" different?
I don't think it's part and parcel with white male supremacy. My understanding is that "slut shaming" primarily describes something that women do to each other. I.e., women calling other women sluts for sexual behaviour deemed to fall outside traditional expectations. Men mostly are okay with women who like to have sex, at least in my experience. And I would think getting paid to be a "love broker" wouldn't really overlap the phenomenon of "slut shaming" if we were to construct that particular Venn diagram. But I could be wrong.
But I see what you're doing. Duke has "Duchesses" that host visitors on campus, including (I'm assuming) athletic recruits. The question is whether they're being paid to have sex with recruits as well. Interestingly, Duke also has "Dukes", the male version of the Duchesses. I wonder if the Dukes are getting paid to have sex with female visitors? If so, talk about a highly competitive application process...
Wait, you're asking how these people http://sites.duke.edu/dukesandduchesses/sample-page/
are different from hiring prostitutes to show up during a recruiting visit?
The "news value" of this thread has disappeared. It needs either a clean-up or a shut-down.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Yes, I am.
What? Your white bread, highly educated, socially sophisticated "campus guides" are some how better, or more appropriate, than strippers and hookers?
OK, if you wanna clothe the issue that way...
My point being that instead of aiming the blame for this scandal at the administration, coaches and families that allowed it, DBR's article, the press and folks talking about it are pushing the blame onto the folks providing an in-demand service. You wouldn't be blaming the tattoo artist for a tattoo for ticket exchange. Why are we focusing on the strippers and hookers when clearly there is a lack of institutional oversight on Jurich's watch, again.