PDA

View Full Version : Maggette vs. Rose



ice-9
08-22-2009, 10:57 AM
Parrish has a column up asking what the difference is between Rose and Maggette -- both were found ineligible players while in college. Why is Memphis' Final Four being stripped while Duke's 1999 Final Four remains?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12096928

I thought the question was answered well in one of the comments: http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/16760068

Any other legal Dukies out there who can provide additional insight?

miramar
08-22-2009, 11:23 AM
but Parish's article makes no sense to me.

According to Parish, the key to the NCAA's decision on Duke was that, in the words of the NCAA's Miles Brand, "we believe firmly that the institution did not know and should not have known" about Maggette's violation.

Parish then claims that there is selective enforcement because "it's important to remember that the NCAA has made no allegation in the Memphis case that the school knew or should have known that Rose was ineligible, but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter."

It would seem that the NCAA is saying that Memphis absolutely should have known that the SAT results were bogus, particularly considering that they had been warned that they were highly suspect. After all, SAT scores are part of the school's responsibilities, while it would be almost impossible to find out about small under-the-table payments. (It would be different if a number of players were driving new cars, an accusation that Digger once leveled at UCLA. IIRC, when the Bruins played at ND that year, Digger had the students jingle their keys before the game.)

To put it another way: does Parish think that if Duke had any inkling of Maggette's situation, as Memphis did about Rose, then Coach K would have played him?

TENNISBEARD
08-22-2009, 02:17 PM
This link should help as well which is from the La Times.

http://8.12.42.31/2004/apr/02/sports/sp-ncaa2

El_Diablo
08-22-2009, 06:43 PM
This link should help as well which is from the La Times.

http://8.12.42.31/2004/apr/02/sports/sp-ncaa2

I thought the LA Times was going with this story now too, but I just noticed that the article is from 2004.

RelativeWays
08-23-2009, 09:01 AM
I'll state an opinion thats really unpopular but I don't think the Maggette/Piggie situation and the way it was handled doesn't cast Duke in the best light. Not that I think Duke or K knew he received money from Piggie, it happened before he was in on campus, not during, but because Arizona and UCLA WERE penalized from the same scandal. Its been proven that Maggette was ineligable, I don't think there's room to debate that, at the very least, the NCAA should have fined Duke some of the tourney proceeds. Instead, we're going to have conspiracy theorists claim that Duke gets away with things that other schools can't. This issue doesn't give us much to argue against that. I'm not sure I'd want the 99 final four banner hanging in Cameron either.

Brian913
08-23-2009, 09:11 AM
I'll state an opinion thats really unpopular but I don't think the Maggette/Piggie situation and the way it was handled doesn't cast Duke in the best light. Not that I think Duke or K knew he received money from Piggie, it happened before he was in on campus, not during, but because Arizona and UCLA WERE penalized from the same scandal. Its been proven that Maggette was ineligable, I don't think there's room to debate that, at the very least, the NCAA should have fined Duke some of the tourney proceeds. Instead, we're going to have conspiracy theorists claim that Duke gets away with things that other schools can't. This issue doesn't give us much to argue against that. I'm not sure I'd want the 99 final four banner hanging in Cameron either.

I don't know how Arizona is involved in this, but UCLA WAS NOT penalized from the same scandal. Jaron Rush was suspended for the Piggie incident, but UCLA did not have any penalty against it. UCLA did have its NCAA appearance in 1999 wiped out because Rush took money from an agent, Jerome Stanley, after he was enrolled at UCLA.

JG Nothing
08-23-2009, 12:23 PM
I don't know how Arizona is involved in this, but UCLA WAS NOT penalized from the same scandal. Jaron Rush was suspended for the Piggie incident, but UCLA did not have any penalty against it. UCLA did have its NCAA appearance in 1999 wiped out because Rush took money from an agent, Jerome Stanley, after he was enrolled at UCLA.

From the Daily Bruin
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2000/jul/3/investigation-of-rushs-ineligi/
"In the last step of the case, the NCAA ruled that because UCLA used Rush, an ineligible player, during the 1999 NCAA Tournament, the school must return 45 percent ($45,321) of its earnings from its participation in the Tournament, in which the Bruins suffered a first round loss to Detroit Mercy. In addition, UCLA’s performance in the 1999 Tournament is deleted....Rush was suspended for 44 games by the NCAA after its discovery that the forward took $6,125 from his summer league coach during high school. After a UCLA appeal, the suspension was reduced by 20 games."

Perhaps more to the point is this quote from the same article:
"“The precedent in these types of situations is if the school did not know nor should have known about the student-athlete’s participation in activities that could render the individual ineligible, the penalty is 45 percent,” [NCAA spokesperson Jane] Jankowski said. “If the school knew or should have known, then it most likely would have been higher.”

If this comment is true, then it seems Duke should have returned a percentage of its earnings from the 1999 NCAA tournament. This only feeds into the conspiracy theories about Duke's preferential treatment. I would be curious to hear an explanation for why we got off with no penalty whatsoever. (IIRC, we did not return any money from the '99 tourney.)

Brian913
08-23-2009, 01:23 PM
From the Daily Bruin
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2000/jul/3/investigation-of-rushs-ineligi/
"In the last step of the case, the NCAA ruled that because UCLA used Rush, an ineligible player, during the 1999 NCAA Tournament, the school must return 45 percent ($45,321) of its earnings from its participation in the Tournament, in which the Bruins suffered a first round loss to Detroit Mercy. In addition, UCLA’s performance in the 1999 Tournament is deleted....Rush was suspended for 44 games by the NCAA after its discovery that the forward took $6,125 from his summer league coach during high school. After a UCLA appeal, the suspension was reduced by 20 games."

Perhaps more to the point is this quote from the same article:
"“The precedent in these types of situations is if the school did not know nor should have known about the student-athlete’s participation in activities that could render the individual ineligible, the penalty is 45 percent,” [NCAA spokesperson Jane] Jankowski said. “If the school knew or should have known, then it most likely would have been higher.”

If this comment is true, then it seems Duke should have returned a percentage of its earnings from the 1999 NCAA tournament. This only feeds into the conspiracy theories about Duke's preferential treatment. I would be curious to hear an explanation for why we got off with no penalty whatsoever. (IIRC, we did not return any money from the '99 tourney.)

Again, they are speaking about the fact that he took money from Stanley, not from Piggie.

Bay Area Duke Fan
08-23-2009, 02:46 PM
He's a very small part of Duke hoops history, but his presence on the 1999 team continues to blemish the image of Duke and Coach K. He's an example of why it's better for Coach K to attempt to identify "one-and-dones" early in the recruiting process and stay away from them.

airowe
08-23-2009, 02:57 PM
He's a very small part of Duke hoops history, but his presence on the 1999 team continues to blemish the image of Duke and Coach K. He's an example of why it's better for Coach K to attempt to identify "one-and-dones" early in the recruiting process and stay away from them.

There's a big difference between one-and-dones and kids who take money from agents.

JG Nothing
08-23-2009, 06:39 PM
Again, they are speaking about the fact that he took money from Stanley, not from Piggie.

According to this SI article, Rush took $6125 from Piggie and $200 from Stanley.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1018285/index.htm

Brian913
08-23-2009, 07:06 PM
According to this SI article, Rush took $6125 from Piggie and $200 from Stanley.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1018285/index.htm

But he took money from Stanley who is an agent (and different standards apply) and he took money while enrolled at UCLA (and different standards apply.) They had to give back the NCAA money because he took money from an agent while in college. They did not have to pay back money to the NCAA because of the Piggie situation.

Greg_Newton
08-23-2009, 08:09 PM
But he took money from Stanley who is an agent (and different standards apply) and he took money while enrolled at UCLA (and different standards apply.) They had to give back the NCAA money because he took money from an agent while in college. They did not have to pay back money to the NCAA because of the Piggie situation.

Are you sure about that? Could you provide a link to verify that statement? It is a crucial distinction if true - and I hope it is - but I have never read anything specifying that was the case.

(bold added)

gep
08-23-2009, 10:35 PM
just curious... for the legal folks out there... is there a statute of limitations for these kinds of stuff?:rolleyes:

I thought one of the things that "helped" Duke was that Maggette was already in the NBA, gone from Duke when information became available. Rose, on the other hand, got information while still at Memphis?

BD80
08-24-2009, 10:46 AM
Was there ever a ruling by the NCAA that Maggette had lost his amateur status and was thus ineligible? Parish would have us connect the dots, saying Piggie and Maggette admitted that money exchanged hands, but I don't recall the NCAA actually ruling him ineligible. Nor do I recall the amount at issue.

I believe the penalty for improperly accepting benefits is a suspension for an amount of games determined by spinning a wheel in a secret room in the bowels of the NCAA fortress. Maybe we hit the space fringed in gold glitter. Since Rush's 44 game suspension (29 games for his Piggie hook-up, 15 for the agent assistance) was reduced to 20 games, it is fair to assume that the Maggette suspension would have been less than 15 games. The fact that the issue with respect to Maggette was not uncovered until after he left Duke, would further reduce the penalty, and frankly rendered the issue substantially moot. Perhaps we got some special consideration because we have such a clean program, but it seems the NCAA just took the easy way out.

JG Nothing
08-24-2009, 11:38 AM
Was there ever a ruling by the NCAA that Maggette had lost his amateur status and was thus ineligible? Parish would have us connect the dots, saying Piggie and Maggette admitted that money exchanged hands, but I don't recall the NCAA actually ruling him ineligible. Nor do I recall the amount at issue.

I believe the penalty for improperly accepting benefits is a suspension for an amount of games determined by spinning a wheel in a secret room in the bowels of the NCAA fortress. Maybe we hit the space fringed in gold glitter. Since Rush's 44 game suspension (29 games for his Piggie hook-up, 15 for the agent assistance) was reduced to 20 games, it is fair to assume that the Maggette suspension would have been less than 15 games. The fact that the issue with respect to Maggette was not uncovered until after he left Duke, would further reduce the penalty, and frankly rendered the issue substantially moot. Perhaps we got some special consideration because we have such a clean program, but it seems the NCAA just took the easy way out.

Here is the solution I believe is fair. How many games would Maggette have been suspended if the transgression had been known before the start of the 08-09 season? Duke should be required to forfeit all games in which Maggette actually played but should have been suspended. I assume that would be no more than the first nine games. (Kareem Rush got a nine game suspension at Missouri for taking $2300 from Piggie.) The NCAA tournament appearance should not be affected because Maggette would have been reinstated by that point.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-24-2009, 02:28 PM
Dragging up the Maggette stuff is a bunch of crap that is a transparent effort by rival fans and media trying to take some heat away from Calipari, and his grey area recruiting methods.

The best defense is a good offense, some people believe.

The two situations (Maggette/Rose) are not at all similar and I think J&B explained it well in the front page "our call".

If there is one thing that reasonable Duke and UNC fans can agree on, it is that the two programs make every effort to follow the rules, as crazy as they may be, and maintain the highest level of integrity possible.

The fan base from either school would go ballistic at even the appearance of shady recruiting or rule bending by Coach K , Coach Williams or anyone on either staff.

Not that they would do anything wrong anyway...

I wouldn't sweat this stuff if I was you guys...besides, I've got your back on this one ;) Have them contact me, and maybe I'll send them a Fed-Ex reply....

Brian913
08-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Here is the solution I believe is fair. How many games would Maggette have been suspended if the transgression had been known before the start of the 08-09 season? Duke should be required to forfeit all games in which Maggette actually played but should have been suspended. I assume that would be no more than the first nine games. (Kareem Rush got a nine game suspension at Missouri for taking $2300 from Piggie.) The NCAA tournament appearance should not be affected because Maggette would have been reinstated by that point.

Why should Duke forfeit those games? No other school has ever had to do that.

Guess there should be special rules so that Duke is punished when others are not.

RelativeWays
08-24-2009, 04:14 PM
So wait neither of the Rushes or the other player had any of the games they played if forfeited, they were suspended since they were still in school and the schools fined some of the tourney proceedings right? When did this happen timeline wise in regards to Maggette? If it happened before Maggette admitted to taking the money then the precedent was set. They couldn't make Duke forfeit games if they didn't make UCLA, Missouri or the other schools forfeit games. Duke probably should have been fined though.

Brian913
08-24-2009, 05:08 PM
So wait neither of the Rushes or the other player had any of the games they played if forfeited, they were suspended since they were still in school and the schools fined some of the tourney proceedings right? When did this happen timeline wise in regards to Maggette? If it happened before Maggette admitted to taking the money then the precedent was set. They couldn't make Duke forfeit games if they didn't make UCLA, Missouri or the other schools forfeit games. Duke probably should have been fined though.

UCLA was fined because Jaron Rush took money in college. The same way Arizona was fined that year because Jason Terry took money in college.

Scorp4me
08-24-2009, 09:27 PM
None of the other schools had to forfeit their games correct? If so all this talk of how Duke should have forfeited games is ridiculous.

The individual players were suspended correct? But since Maggette had already left for the NBA, unless the NBA wanted to punish him all this talk of suspensions is ridiculous.

UCLA had to give back tournament proceeds because of money Rush took in college, not before college correct? If so again the talk of giving back money is ridiculous.


Now for my own question, if it was for money received before college did the other schools have to give back any money? If so then Duke certainly should have as well and is the one punishment that seems could have been levied against Duke in line with the other schools (since Maggette was already gone and couldn't be suspended). But from what I've read the other schools weren't, this was because of "college" money and so is a moot point.

All in all I agree with Wheat though, this is all just trying to drag Duke in someone else's mud.

Brian913
08-24-2009, 10:32 PM
Now for my own question, if it was for money received before college did the other schools have to give back any money?
.
No, the players had to pay back money, not the colleges.

JG Nothing
08-24-2009, 11:05 PM
Why should Duke forfeit those games? No other school has ever had to do that.

Guess there should be special rules so that Duke is punished when others are not.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe Duke should forfeit the games in which it used an ineligible player because it is the honorable thing to do. If a team uses an ineligible player, then it seems to me that they should forfeit the game. Is that really controversial? Look, it's just my opinion. If you disagree, fine.

As for the why should there be "special rules" for Duke question, welcome to the basic mindset of everyone criticizing Duke about the Maggette situation.

Greg_Newton
08-25-2009, 12:09 AM
Again, if anyone is aware of an actual article confirming that UCLA's punishment was based on the money Rush received in college and not the money from Piggie, I would love to see it. That would pretty much settle the whole argument one way or the either, but nothing I've read has specified as much.

Brian913
08-25-2009, 06:57 AM
Again, if anyone is aware of an actual article confirming that UCLA's punishment was based on the money Rush received in college and not the money from Piggie, I would love to see it. That would pretty much settle the whole argument one way or the either, but nothing I've read has specified as much.

How about the fact that exactly the same penalty was imposed on Arizona for Jason Terry taking money from an agent in college? How about the fact that other colleges in the same situation as Duke (pre-enrollment benefits from 3rd parties) did not have to pay back any money? How about the fact that in Rush's case the suspension for taking $200 from Stanley was longer than the suspension for taking $6000 from Piggie.

Brian913
08-25-2009, 06:59 AM
Oh, I don't know. Maybe Duke should forfeit the games in which it used an ineligible player because it is the honorable thing to do. If a team uses an ineligible player, then it seems to me that they should forfeit the game. Is that really controversial? Look, it's just my opinion. If you disagree, fine.

As for the why should there be "special rules" for Duke question, welcome to the basic mindset of everyone criticizing Duke about the Maggette situation.

He was not ineligible until the university or NCAA determined he was ineligible. At that time procedures could have taken place to restore that eligibility.

dukeENG2003
08-25-2009, 11:04 AM
Dave Glenn made an interesting distinction between Rose and Maggette (and Rush, and whoever else) on 850 the buzz yesterday about this as well. I was amazed to hear him (and a bunch of State fans) come to our defense. Academic and amatuerism situations are handled quite differently by the NCAA.

Consider this comparison. Its not uncommon for international (and non international) players to admit to having been paid and asking for mercy from the NCAA and an appropriate suspension (Vasil Evitmov comes to mind). The NCAA suspends them for a certain period of time, and their "debt to the NCAA" is repaid. If Memphis had come out and admitted that Rose's SAT had been taken by someone else, do you think the NCAA would have done the same sort of thing (OK, you cheated on your SATs, so we'll give you a 15 game suspension)? Absolutely not.