PDA

View Full Version : Cheaters Never Win



RoyalBlue08
11-26-2010, 10:05 PM
...except in college basketball, where UConn and Tennessee win preseason tournaments.

shoutingncu
11-27-2010, 12:02 AM
And possibly college football Saturday... wait that's another thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?23149-Duke-UNC-football-pregame).

jammsb
11-27-2010, 07:02 AM
They all cheat. Some more than others. But they all cheat. Not everybody gets caught.

-jk
11-27-2010, 08:33 AM
They all cheat. Some more than others. But they all cheat. Not everybody gets caught.

Can you expand on this a bit?

-jk

davekay1971
11-27-2010, 10:21 AM
They all cheat. Some more than others. But they all cheat. Not everybody gets caught.

I absolutely despise this statement, and I hear it all the time from fans of programs who have been caught cheating. It's completely unfair to broadly accuse a vast array of programs who have never been found guilty of cheating. All the Carolina fans I know are using this lame excuse these days. All I heard from them over the last week was "Well, State's cheating, but O'Brien just hasn't been caught yet." No evidence at all to support it, just a pathetic defense of their own dirty program getting beaten by a rival that, as far as well know, is cleanly run and just a better team this year.

Show evidence of your accusation if you have any, but if it's just speculation, keep it off this board.

WiJoe
11-28-2010, 12:39 AM
They all cheat. Some more than others. But they all cheat. Not everybody gets caught.

No need to expand. THEY ALL CHEAT. What are you looking for, signed affidavits?

Duke: A Dynasty
11-28-2010, 12:47 AM
Can you expand on this a bit?

-jk


I absolutely despise this statement, and I hear it all the time from fans of programs who have been caught cheating. It's completely unfair to broadly accuse a vast array of programs who have never been found guilty of cheating. All the Carolina fans I know are using this lame excuse these days. All I heard from them over the last week was "Well, State's cheating, but O'Brien just hasn't been caught yet." No evidence at all to support it, just a pathetic defense of their own dirty program getting beaten by a rival that, as far as well know, is cleanly run and just a better team this year.

Show evidence of your accusation if you have any, but if it's just speculation, keep it off this board.

I would tend to agree with him. Most if not All programs (pro or college and some high schools) cheat at some point. It may not be on purpose but its gotta happen sooner or later maybe small or big. Its kind of like stealing, eventually you may accidently take a pen or pencil you had borrowed but its still stealing no matter how you word it.

I know you said to "give evidence" but it could be so small it never shows up because nobody thought to admit it or the league could think it so petty of an offense it may ignore it. I dont know for certain though which is why I am not saying it is 100% fact, just that I believe they do at some point.

Devilsfan
11-28-2010, 11:28 AM
It's all about the MONEY! Look at BSU. They lost and their New Years Day paycheck one analyst suggested might go from $14 million to $750 thousand. To get that big payday and a handsome reward for the head coach some are not above taking the chance. Not to say Butch, Cal, Bruce or some other high profile coach might attempt to just ever so "slightly" break the rules for the mega rewards.

roywhite
11-28-2010, 12:31 PM
No need to expand. THEY ALL CHEAT. What are you looking for, signed affidavits?

Shouting it doesn't make it so.

The statement requires a good bit more explanation than we've seen on this thread so far; the blanket accusation is so vague and encompassing as to be meaningless.

Every big-time college basketball program may break a rule from time to time?
Serious violations are going on in every program?
Schools that never get caught for violations are just better at hiding things?
Players are getting illegal benefits in every program?

Olympic Fan
11-28-2010, 12:46 PM
Shouting it doesn't make it so.

The statement requires a good bit more explanation than we've seen on this thread so far; the blanket accusation is so vague and encompassing as to be meaningless.

Every big-time college basketball program may break a rule from time to time?
Serious violations are going on in every program?
Schools that never get caught for violations are just better at hiding things?
Players are getting illegal benefits in every program?

Roy, I am with you ... I HATE the cheater's excuse -- everybody does it.

No they don't. There are plenty of programs that run clean programs, that try to follow the rules and that take the term "student-athlete " serious. Those schools are continually battling the cheaters, who will do anything, say anything and spend anything to win in athletics. And what they constantly say is, "everybody cheats".

Well, the NCAA rule book is a massive tome and it onvolves so many convoluted rules that its likely that every school has made mistakes that technically violates some rule. But there is a big difference from some of those simple mistakes and using a former manager/agent to help recruit a prospect or telling recruits to lie about your illegal contacts or hiring a known cheater who is on the payroll of an agent or suggesting that cheating on a paper in violation of your own tutor guidelines is not even worthy of sending to your sham of an honor court or paying that hot juco QB prospect $180,000 ...

There are degrees to everything. Breaking an occassional rule (and self-reporting it) happens to everybody. But cheating -- buying players, covering up their academic misdeed, knowning violating recruiting rules -- that's rarer than the cheaters would have you believe.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 02:56 AM
Roy, I am with you ... I HATE the cheater's excuse -- everybody does it.

No they don't. There are plenty of programs that run clean programs, that try to follow the rules and that take the term "student-athlete " serious. Those schools are continually battling the cheaters, who will do anything, say anything and spend anything to win in athletics. And what they constantly say is, "everybody cheats".

Well, the NCAA rule book is a massive tome and it onvolves so many convoluted rules that its likely that every school has made mistakes that technically violates some rule. But there is a big difference from some of those simple mistakes and using a former manager/agent to help recruit a prospect or telling recruits to lie about your illegal contacts or hiring a known cheater who is on the payroll of an agent or suggesting that cheating on a paper in violation of your own tutor guidelines is not even worthy of sending to your sham of an honor court or paying that hot juco QB prospect $180,000 ...

There are degrees to everything. Breaking an occassional rule (and self-reporting it) happens to everybody. But cheating -- buying players, covering up their academic misdeed, knowning violating recruiting rules -- that's rarer than the cheaters would have you believe.

This is what I was talking about. It does not matter how you want to sugar coat it because it is still cheating. If someone commits murder then admits it does that mean they did not murder? No of course not. Yes there are degrees to everything (murder, theiving, lying, cheating, abuse) but it does not change what it really is, just how you view the culprit after and how someone is to be punished if at all.

Saratoga2
11-29-2010, 07:42 AM
This is what I was talking about. It does not matter how you want to sugar coat it because it is still cheating. If someone commits murder then admits it does that mean they did not murder? No of course not. Yes there are degrees to everything (murder, theiving, lying, cheating, abuse) but it does not change what it really is, just how you view the culprit after and how someone is to be punished if at all.

I'm with those that think there are a lot of clean programs out there that are very different from those who knowing cheat to gain an advantage. Just because another post suggest that some programs may unknowingly violate some obscure rule, doesn't mean that there is not a significant difference when compared to the real cheaters.

77devil
11-29-2010, 07:52 AM
This is what I was talking about. It does not matter how you want to sugar coat it because it is still cheating. If someone commits murder then admits it does that mean they did not murder? No of course not. Yes there are degrees to everything (murder, theiving, lying, cheating, abuse) but it does not change what it really is, just how you view the culprit after and how someone is to be punished if at all.

Surely you understand there is a distinction with or without intent.

nocilla
11-29-2010, 09:52 AM
This is what I was talking about. It does not matter how you want to sugar coat it because it is still cheating. If someone commits murder then admits it does that mean they did not murder? No of course not. Yes there are degrees to everything (murder, theiving, lying, cheating, abuse) but it does not change what it really is, just how you view the culprit after and how someone is to be punished if at all.

There is a big difference between stealing a pen and committing murder.

JasonEvans
11-29-2010, 10:58 AM
This is what I was talking about. It does not matter how you want to sugar coat it because it is still cheating. If someone commits murder then admits it does that mean they did not murder? No of course not. Yes there are degrees to everything (murder, theiving, lying, cheating, abuse) but it does not change what it really is, just how you view the culprit after and how someone is to be punished if at all.

Actually, if it was an accident it is called manslaughter, not murder. The penalties for this are far less severe.

Similarly, there is a difference in cheating and mistakenly violating the rules. I see the former as an overt act where there is knowledge of the crime. The latter is an accident and does not carry the same kind of consequences.

Does every school, at some point, make a mistake and violate the rules? I think this is likely. Recall that Chris Collins attended one of John Wall's basketball games during a "dead period" about 2 years ago. Duke reported it and gave Collins a small penalty (I forget what it was).

There is a huge difference in that and in the kind of cheating that has gone on at Tennessee, UConn, and UNC recently. You must see that, don't you?

--Jason "the notion that 'everybody cheats' is just plain wrong and a crutch to the cheaters -- I HATE IT!" Evans

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 12:07 PM
Actually, if it was an accident it is called manslaughter, not murder. The penalties for this are far less severe.

Similarly, there is a difference in cheating and mistakenly violating the rules. I see the former as an overt act where there is knowledge of the crime. The latter is an accident and does not carry the same kind of consequences.

Does every school, at some point, make a mistake and violate the rules? I think this is likely. Recall that Chris Collins attended one of John Wall's basketball games during a "dead period" about 2 years ago. Duke reported it and gave Collins a small penalty (I forget what it was).

There is a huge difference in that and in the kind of cheating that has gone on at Tennessee, UConn, and UNC recently. You must see that, don't you?
--Jason "the notion that 'everybody cheats' is just plain wrong and a crutch to the cheaters -- I HATE IT!" Evans

Yes I stated that actually. I said there were degrees to it. Some violations are small and some very large. But it is still going against the rules and guidelines set by the program and NCAA whether it is major or not. So there in for some kinda of cheating has taken place. What Collins did is considered a form of cheating but it was a minor offense that was self reported and taken care of and he nor Duke is thought badly of for it. But it is still not playing by the rules. Im just saying there is always gonna be some form of violations at every program whether it is accidental or not, small or big.


Why do you feel that "it is just plain wrong"? I am being attacked for my honest opinion and my reasoning behind it why don't you explain why you think it is false rather than just telling us it is. This is not completely directed at you JasonEvans I just took it out of this quote since I was answering something you said.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 12:12 PM
Surely you understand there is a distinction with or without intent.

Yes I do and already stated that. But it does not change the fact it is still cheating. You accidently take a pen from the waitress and it would still be stealing a pen from her. Yea sure it is just a pen and she might not care that much at the end of the day but you still took it without her permission.


There is a big difference between stealing a pen and committing murder.

I did not compare the two directly.

flyingdutchdevil
11-29-2010, 12:30 PM
This thread is amazing in analyzing whether some people believe that man is inherently good vs inherently evil. Some are optimists and others are pessimists.

Please continue.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 12:36 PM
This thread is amazing in analyzing whether some people believe that man is inherently good vs inherently evil. Some are optimists and others are pessimists.

Please continue.

Its not that I think people are evil. Its just things happen and it is not always on purpose and people in here are trying to say it does not exist if it is an accident or the incedent is small. It still happened and that is all I am trying to say. For the most part I think people are good it is just the intentions they have that are good or bad.

Should this thread be moved to off-topic?

greybeard
11-29-2010, 12:42 PM
I understand that Pearl violated NCAA rules, but do not think that the violations, taken individually or collectively, tar either Pearl or the Tennessee program as malefeasors in any meaningful way. I think that the rule violation regarding Pearl's having entertained a group of recruits at a barbeque held at his home is passing insignificant. Too many phone calls to a recruit is bad? Paid flights for an already signed recruit and his family to visit is also bad? Really? Bad compared to what?

The real corruption in college basketball recruiting remains where it has always been--under the table money, which in recent years has become much more overt and the amounts involved much more substantial. The abuses to the system through the shoe-company funded AAU industry go ignored by the NCAA because the NCAA itself is captive to those companies and the big business that college basketball has become ia beyond control.

In the meantime, let them focus on barbeques, but let's have some perspective. Pearl hosts a barbeque at his home, boom goes the dynamite. KU signs the nation's no. 1 after hiring an assistant from his AAU program for a cool half million and everything is cool. What am I missing?

BD80
11-29-2010, 12:55 PM
... What Collins did is considered a form of cheating but it was a minor offense that was self reported and taken care of and he nor Duke is thought badly of for it. But it is still not playing by the rules. Im just saying there is always gonna be some form of violations at every program whether it is accidental or not, small or big.


Why do you feel that "it is just plain wrong"? I am being attacked for my honest opinion and my reasoning behind it why don't you explain why you think it is false rather than just telling us it is. ...

There is a difference between an unintentional rule violation and cheating.

I do not believe that Duke cheats. To say that everyone cheats is to say that Duke cheats.

Indoor66
11-29-2010, 12:58 PM
I understand that Pearl violated NCAA rules, but do not think that the violations, taken individually or collectively, tar either Pearl or the Tennessee program as malefeasors in any meaningful way. I think that the rule violation regarding Pearl's having entertained a group of recruits at a barbeque held at his home is passing insignificant. Too many phone calls to a recruit is bad? Paid flights for an already signed recruit and his family to visit is also bad? Really? Bad compared to what?

The real corruption in college basketball recruiting remains where it has always been--under the table money, which in recent years has become much more overt and the amounts involved much more substantial. The abuses to the system through the shoe-company funded AAU industry go ignored by the NCAA because the NCAA itself is captive to those companies and the big business that college basketball has become ia beyond control.

In the meantime, let them focus on barbeques, but let's have some perspective. Pearl hosts a barbeque at his home, boom goes the dynamite. KU signs the nation's no. 1 after hiring an assistant from his AAU program for a cool half million and everything is cool. What am I missing?

Grey One, I agree with you more often than not, but not this time. The rules are the rules. Kinda like the boss: he may be right and he may be wrong but he is always the boss.

We can argue for changes in the rules but we must follow the existing rules. Otherwise we have anarchy. Moral relativism defeats any legal system. Unfortunately we then are reduced to the argument of what is moral. IMO it is much more appropriate to live by and enforce the rules as they stand.

If you don't like the rules, change them or get those who can to change them.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 01:14 PM
There is a difference between an unintentional rule violation and cheating.

I do not believe that Duke cheats. To say that everyone cheats is to say that Duke cheats.

An unitentional rule violation would still be cheating. I do not see why people keep trying to re-word it, it is what it is. And another poster stated previously the Collins did break NCAA rules by watching John Walls game in high school and Collins does represent Duke so there in fact that yes Duke has "cheated" they broke the rules and the NCAA felt Duke punished Collins fairly so no other further action was taken. Do I believe Duke are cheaters as you say? No I do not. Did they cheat according to the NCAA? Yes and it was no big deal and was resolved. Duke are not cheaters as in continuing to do the wrong thing, they saw what happend and recognized it was wrong and stopped it.

-jk
11-29-2010, 01:22 PM
I think, by definition, cheating has an element of intent; I would not necessarily call a minor rules violation made by mistake "cheating". We're not perfect beings. We do make mistakes. We accept the consequences. Or not.

However, a determined effort to get around clearly understood rules, especially going so far as to ask people to lie for you to cover, is cheating by any definition. Different degrees of cheating are also possible.

I think that's the fundamental difference people have here.

-jk

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 01:34 PM
I think, by definition, cheating has an element of intent; I would not necessarily call a minor rules violation made by mistake "cheating". We're not perfect beings. We do make mistakes. We accept the consequences. Or not.

However, a determined effort to get around clearly understood rules, especially going so far as to ask people to lie for you to cover, is cheating by any definition. Different degrees of cheating are also possible.

I think that's the fundamental difference people have here.

-jk

Ok, I see what our saying and agree whole heartidly (spelling error I think) I was just pointing it out that technically if you do not follow the rules set forth by the person or persons in charge you are breaking the rules and therefore cheating. I would not consider myself a cheater or most people cheaters, I do not consider Bruce Pearl a cheater either just because he held a Bar-b-que for his recruits. Just by the defintition of cheat thought I would say everyone has done it.


Defining Cheat:

cheat 
[cheet]

–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

allenmurray
11-29-2010, 01:35 PM
You accidently take a pen from the waitress and it would still be stealing a pen from her.

Well, you are simply incorrect. In criminal law for the act to be considered to be "stealing" it would have to have been preceded by intent. So not only are you wrong, but your analogy falls apart as well.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mens-rea

allenmurray
11-29-2010, 01:42 PM
Ok, I see what our saying and agree whole heartidly (spelling error I think) I was just pointing it out that technically if you do not follow the rules set forth by the person or persons in charge you are breaking the rules and therefore cheating.


Defining Cheat:

cheat 
[cheet]

–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

And here you are incorrect as well. Even your use of the term "technically" doesn't make you less wrong. All of the examples in the definition you cited carry the assumption of intentionality. To defraud, deceive, elude, practice, violate, etc. all require a prior knowledge that the rules are being broken. That is what differentiates cheating (intentionality) from making a mistake (no intentinality). They simply are not synonymous. It is why the NCAA, as well as criminal and civil courts, draw such a bright line between intentional and unintentional acts.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 01:42 PM
Well, you are simply incorrect. In criminal law for the act to be considered to be "stealing" it would have to have been preceded by intent. So not only are you wrong, but your analogy falls apart as well.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mens-rea

But your intent is unknown. You could easily lie about it. So I could go steal a couple hundred dollars off of my roomates desk then say well I did not mean to do it and it was a mistake and I therefore stole nothing?

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 01:45 PM
And here you are incorrect as well. Even your use of the term "technically" doesn't make you less wrong. All of the examples in the definition you cited carry the assumption of intentionality. To defraud, deceive, elude, practice, violate, etc. all require a prior knowledge that the rules are being broken. That is what differentiates cheating (intentionality) from making a mistake (no intentinality). They simply are not synonymous. It is why the NCAA, as well as criminal and civil courts, draw such a bright line between intentional and unintentional acts.

There are 7 definitions for the word cheat. To do anyone of them would mean you cheated. So if you were to "5. to violate rules or regulations" which is what I have been saying then you have in fact cheated.

JohnGalt
11-29-2010, 01:50 PM
Ok, I see what our saying and agree whole heartidly (spelling error I think) I was just pointing it out that technically if you do not follow the rules set forth by the person or persons in charge you are breaking the rules and therefore cheating. I would not consider myself a cheater or most people cheaters, I do not consider Bruce Pearl a cheater either just because he held a Bar-b-que for his recruits. Just by the defintition of cheat thought I would say everyone has done it.


Defining Cheat:

cheat 
[cheet]

–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

Umm, what source did you use? The Oxford states:

Pronunciation:/CHēt, tʃit/
verb
1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination:
she always cheats at cards
[with object] deceive or trick:
he had cheated her out of everything she had
informal be sexually unfaithful:
his wife was cheating on him
2 [with object] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill:
she cheated death in a spectacular crash
archaic help (time ) pass:
the tuneless rhyme with which the warder cheats the time

-noun
a person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage:
a liar and a cheat
an act of cheating; a fraud or deception

(key phrases highlighted)

Can you honestly tag Collins with any of the above definitions?

The answer is No. Semantics aside, cheating is different than breaking the rules.

Similarly, I'm in the camp RE: different degrees of cheating. Calling a recruit too many times seems rather trivial to filling his bank account.

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 01:57 PM
Umm, what source did you use? The Oxford states:

Pronunciation:/CHēt, tʃit/
verb
1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination:
she always cheats at cards
[with object] deceive or trick:
he had cheated her out of everything she had
informal be sexually unfaithful:
his wife was cheating on him
2 [with object] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill:
she cheated death in a spectacular crash
archaic help (time ) pass:
the tuneless rhyme with which the warder cheats the time

-noun
a person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage:
a liar and a cheat
an act of cheating; a fraud or deception

(key phrases highlighted)

Can you honestly tag Collins with any of the above definitions?
The answer is No. Semantics aside, cheating is different than breaking the rules.

Similarly, I'm in the camp RE: different degrees of cheating. Calling a recruit too many times seems rather trivial to filling his bank account.

I think mine came from Dictionary.com

No, I would not I have already stated I do not consider him or Duke cheaters

I too have already stated the same thing multiple times

JasonEvans
11-29-2010, 02:09 PM
I do not consider Bruce Pearl a cheater either just because he held a Bar-b-que for his recruits.

Bruce Pearl knew he was breaking the rules, told the recruits at the BBQ that he was breaking the rules, and told them to not tell anyone about the rules violation. Whether you think the BBQ party was a small infraction or a big one, he showed himself to be someone who will knowingly go around the rules in order to gain an advantage. That is a cheater.

I think the problem so many of us are having with your statements, D:Dy, is that you started by saying, "everyone cheats" as a way of excusing overt, blatant, obvious rules violations by other schools. The many responses you have gotten all indicate that we feel there is a huge difference in knowingly going around the rules in a sneaky way and accidentally failing to understand a fairly minor rule (and then self-reporting it and taking action to punish yourself for it). I think I speak for some other posters when I say I have a hard time understanding how you could think those two extremes are one and the same and can both be called "cheating" with no allowance for intent and degree of harm.

When you (and others) say, "everybody cheats," you enable the real cheaters -- the ones tossing the rulebook aside to lavish money, gifts, and jobs on recruits; the ones not bothering to educate student-athletes and flouting eligibility rules; the ones enabling street agents and other hanger-ons to manipulate and corrupt these kids.

I find it disgusting that someone could look at some of the recent high-profile scandals in college sports and shrug their shoulders merely saying, "No big deal. Everyone is doing it."

--Jason "Duke fans should be especially outraged at this- because our football team and basketball team strive to do it right and often suffer the competitive consequences of doing so" Evans

rasputin
11-29-2010, 02:24 PM
There are 7 definitions for the word cheat. To do anyone of them would mean you cheated. So if you were to "5. to violate rules or regulations" which is what I have been saying then you have in fact cheated.

But the example given was "he cheats at cards." There is an obvious element of intent, even if not explicitly set forth in the definition. If you accidentally misdeal the cards, you haven't "cheated."

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 08:52 PM
Bruce Pearl knew he was breaking the rules, told the recruits at the BBQ that he was breaking the rules, and told them to not tell anyone about the rules violation. Whether you think the BBQ party was a small infraction or a big one, he showed himself to be someone who will knowingly go around the rules in order to gain an advantage. That is a cheater.

I think the problem so many of us are having with your statements, D:Dy, is that you started by saying, "everyone cheats" as a way of excusing overt, blatant, obvious rules violations by other schools. The many responses you have gotten all indicate that we feel there is a huge difference in knowingly going around the rules in a sneaky way and accidentally failing to understand a fairly minor rule (and then self-reporting it and taking action to punish yourself for it). I think I speak for some other posters when I say I have a hard time understanding how you could think those two extremes are one and the same and can both be called "cheating" with no allowance for intent and degree of harm.
When you (and others) say, "everybody cheats," you enable the real cheaters -- the ones tossing the rulebook aside to lavish money, gifts, and jobs on recruits; the ones not bothering to educate student-athletes and flouting eligibility rules; the ones enabling street agents and other hanger-ons to manipulate and corrupt these kids.

I find it disgusting that someone could look at some of the recent high-profile scandals in college sports and shrug their shoulders merely saying, "No big deal. Everyone is doing it."

--Jason "Duke fans should be especially outraged at this- because our football team and basketball team strive to do it right and often suffer the competitive consequences of doing so" Evans

Ok.. this is the last time I think I will post in this thread. I have already said I don't know how many times that I agree with everyone in here that there is a major difference and I do not consider every violation cheating. I was merely trying to point out that by definition it was considered cheating. And I kept repeating this but it is obvious from feedback that people over looked that fact.

-jk
11-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Ok.. this is the last time I think I will post in this thread. I have already said I don't know how many times that I agree with everyone in here that there is a major difference and I do not consider every violation cheating. I was merely trying to point out that by definition it was considered cheating. And I kept repeating this but it is obvious from feedback that people over looked that fact.

Rather than "overlooking," I think most people simply disagreed with your concept of "cheating without intent."

-jk

Duke: A Dynasty
11-29-2010, 09:01 PM
Rather than "overlooking," I think most people simply disagreed with your concept of "cheating without intent."

-jk

Which is why I will not be posting any more on this topic since opinions wrongly affect feedback for some reason. Anyway I was just getting frustrated with the topic anyhow.

greybeard
11-29-2010, 10:13 PM
Grey One, I agree with you more often than not, but not this time. The rules are the rules. Kinda like the boss: he may be right and he may be wrong but he is always the boss.

We can argue for changes in the rules but we must follow the existing rules. Otherwise we have anarchy. Moral relativism defeats any legal system. Unfortunately we then are reduced to the argument of what is moral. IMO it is much more appropriate to live by and enforce the rules as they stand.

If you don't like the rules, change them or get those who can to change them.

I see your point and I didn't mean to imply that Pearl should not get have gotten punished, which if I read correctly he did big time, by his school primarily, not the NCAA.

What I stand behind is my view that what Pearl did does not make him a cheat whose team's accomplishments are then to be sullied, as they were in the initiating post. In fact, I find that Pearl's rule breaking to pale in comparison to the payoffs the NCAA turns a blind eye to, as with Calhoun's having somehow managed to grab Rudy Gay from Gary's grip just after Calhoun paid Gay's AAU coach 25K supposedly to host a game or some such.

Some might legitimately question whether my views here are biased, hey, so few of my boys are in the game nowadays, right, but I think that, on balance, Pearl got what he deserved but does not deserve to be called a "cheat." I think that that term should be reserved for sterner stuff than hosting a barbeque and making extra phone calls. I really do.

In fact, if you really think about it, how much difference is there between what Pearl did for his program and K's efforts on behalf of EWill to secure for him a hardship exemption transfer that let him play for Memphis without sitting out a year? Yeah, I know, "here he goes again, on one of those tangents no one can follow: K was operating within the rules as an altruist to help a young guy who needed to be near his Mom, and Pearl was acting to advance his program and broke the rules, two completely different things." Yeah, okay, now I'm not saying that there is anything to what I'm about to say, that's its anything but a yarn, but now here me out.

To begin with, was I the only one who was sure that EWill was a one-and-done guy at Memphis, especially if Calipari had stayed, and no one dreamed that he didn't plan to when the EWill transfer issue first arose. So, I assumed that his Mom must have been on her last legs, about to go out, but that turned out not to be the case. So, what if this whole transfer thing came about like this:

Let's say that by mid season EWill had had enough, that he went to K and told him that he had decided to quit, to go home to Memphis, sign with an agent, work out with some trainers, and enter the draft at season's end, that he needed to turn pro early to help support his ill Mom, to give him some of the things that she had never had before it was too late, and that he saw no hope of getting there by staying at Duke. Now suppose further that K convinced EWill to back away and think about it, then presented EWill with an opportunity to start for the rest of the season and see how things worked out, that if he didn't feel he had earned a shot at the pros or could by staying at Duke, K would support EWill in an effort to get a hardship transfer to Memphis to be near his very ill Mom, play for Calipari for however long, we all know how long "however" always is, and then have a much better shot at the pros then if he left Duke mid-season his freshman year.

I'm not saying that that is what happened, but if it did, then the being-near-Mom rationale for the transfer would have been a ruse, an excuse, rather than a legitimate grounds to seek a hardship exemption. Would we then be talking moral or legal here, indoor? That question would never get asked because an inquiry into the underpinnings of such a request beyond the facts surrounding the mother's health would never take place, nor should it. But, the possiblity remains, some things never get illuminated and get the presumption that a well earned reputation deserves.

In the end, this little make believe story was simply a straw man to show the ambiguity, the nuance of certain things, that are lost when labels like "cheat" are thrown about. I think that rule violations deserve to be punished but the brandishing of labels needs to be more nuanced and the label brandished here just doesn't fit.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just in the bag for the guy. Who knows, maybe I am.

77devil
11-30-2010, 08:28 AM
I see your point and I didn't mean to imply that Pearl should not get have gotten punished, which if I read correctly he did big time, by his school primarily, not the NCAA.

What I stand behind is my view that what Pearl did does not make him a cheat whose team's accomplishments are then to be sullied, as they were in the initiating post. In fact, I find that Pearl's rule breaking to pale in comparison to the payoffs the NCAA turns a blind eye to, as with Calhoun's having somehow managed to grab Rudy Gay from Gary's grip just after Calhoun paid Gay's AAU coach 25K supposedly to host a game or some such.

Some might legitimately question whether my views here are biased, hey, so few of my boys are in the game nowadays, right, but I think that, on balance, Pearl got what he deserved but does not deserve to be called a "cheat." I think that that term should be reserved for sterner stuff than hosting a barbeque and making extra phone calls. I really do.

In fact, if you really think about it, how much difference is there between what Pearl did for his program and K's efforts on behalf of EWill to secure for him a hardship exemption transfer that let him play for Memphis without sitting out a year? Yeah, I know, "here he goes again, on one of those tangents no one can follow: K was operating within the rules as an altruist to help a young guy who needed to be near his Mom, and Pearl was acting to advance his program and broke the rules, two completely different things." Yeah, okay, now I'm not saying that there is anything to what I'm about to say, that's its anything but a yarn, but now here me out.

To begin with, was I the only one who was sure that EWill was a one-and-done guy at Memphis, especially if Calipari had stayed, and no one dreamed that he didn't plan to when the EWill transfer issue first arose. So, I assumed that his Mom must have been on her last legs, about to go out, but that turned out not to be the case. So, what if this whole transfer thing came about like this:

Let's say that by mid season EWill had had enough, that he went to K and told him that he had decided to quit, to go home to Memphis, sign with an agent, work out with some trainers, and enter the draft at season's end, that he needed to turn pro early to help support his ill Mom, to give him some of the things that she had never had before it was too late, and that he saw no hope of getting there by staying at Duke. Now suppose further that K convinced EWill to back away and think about it, then presented EWill with an opportunity to start for the rest of the season and see how things worked out, that if he didn't feel he had earned a shot at the pros or could by staying at Duke, K would support EWill in an effort to get a hardship transfer to Memphis to be near his very ill Mom, play for Calipari for however long, we all know how long "however" always is, and then have a much better shot at the pros then if he left Duke mid-season his freshman year.

I'm not saying that that is what happened, but if it did, then the being-near-Mom rationale for the transfer would have been a ruse, an excuse, rather than a legitimate grounds to seek a hardship exemption. Would we then be talking moral or legal here, indoor? That question would never get asked because an inquiry into the underpinnings of such a request beyond the facts surrounding the mother's health would never take place, nor should it. But, the possiblity remains, some things never get illuminated and get the presumption that a well earned reputation deserves.

In the end, this little make believe story was simply a straw man to show the ambiguity, the nuance of certain things, that are lost when labels like "cheat" are thrown about. I think that rule violations deserve to be punished but the brandishing of labels needs to be more nuanced and the label brandished here just doesn't fit.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just in the bag for the guy. Who knows, maybe I am.

Of course, the critical difference in your rationale is that it is a fact that Pearl knowingly and with intent violated several NCAA rules for his benefit, and your speculation about E-Will, while a somewhat interesting yarn, is just baseless speculation.

JohnGalt
11-30-2010, 08:49 AM
Of course, the critical difference in your rationale is that it is a fact that Pearl knowingly and with intent violated several NCAA rules for his benefit, and your speculation about E-Will, while a somewhat interesting yarn, is just baseless speculation.

That and Pearl lied to NCAA officials about it, which he now admits.

I tend to agree with grey that he shouldn't be labeled a "cheat." However, I find it nauseating to see Pearl - on national television - getting all choked up and sanctimonious talking about "honor and integrity" when he displayed such a remarkable lack of it. He compounded his problems by lying in the face NCAA investigation and now he's paying the price; it'd be nice if we could avoid the histrionics.

greybeard
11-30-2010, 10:59 AM
Of course, the critical difference in your rationale is that it is a fact that Pearl knowingly and with intent violated several NCAA rules for his benefit, and your speculation about E-Will, while a somewhat interesting yarn, is just baseless speculation.

I agree and said so. That said, how speculative is it that EWill, who from all in-time reports was mightily unhappy during his pre-starting days at Duke, was in constant contact with the guy who recruited him, that would be Dawkins, and not any Duke coaches. And, given the fact that EWill entered the draft and left his Moms after one year and she still seems to be ticking same as when he was at Duke, is it really unreasonable to think that perhaps being near his Moms might not have been the real reason behind his desire to transfer from Duke?

And, now it gets more interesting, how likely is it that EWill even knew that such a thing as a hardship exemption of the sort he received was even possible? To anyone's knowledge, was one ever granted on such grounds previously?

And, was EWill going to start for Duke the ensuing year? With Mason coming in to join his brother Miles, it seemed certain that EWill was almost certainly going to be a 6th man at best, which oh so was not getting him to the pros.

So, while, as I said, questions into the gray area of how ideas like this get germinated don't get asked, and I think that that is as it should be. In fact, I'll take it a step further, I do not see that a penalty put on transferring--the need to sit out a year--makes any sense in today's sports scene, if it ever did before.

But, I do think that the story behind the EWill transfer was far more nuanced then the final product--an announcement at season's end that EWill with K's full support would be pursuing a hardship based transfer to be near his ill-Mom--suggests. Nuance, as I've said, is the stuff that sound judgments are made of, along with discretion, judgment, proportionality. And, I think that nuance and judgment should have dictated that the label "cheat" should not have been slung onto my boy. On the other hand, Pearl is my boy in no small part for the same reason that Larry Brown is, so maybe my defense of both has a certain bias. Memory serves you were calling Larry a cheat and worse too, which I also thought was over the top. Interesting.

pfrduke
11-30-2010, 12:12 PM
I agree and said so. That said, how speculative is it that EWill, who from all in-time reports was mightily unhappy during his pre-starting days at Duke, was in constant contact with the guy who recruited him, that would be Dawkins, and not any Duke coaches. And, given the fact that EWill entered the draft and left his Moms after one year and she still seems to be ticking same as when he was at Duke, is it really unreasonable to think that perhaps being near his Moms might not have been the real reason behind his desire to transfer from Duke?

Surprisingly, NBA money helps one care for an ill parent much more than a college scholarship does.

greybeard
11-30-2010, 01:05 PM
Surprisingly, NBA money helps one care for an ill parent much more than a college scholarship does.

I'm really not trying to make the case that EWill's hardship exemption was gotten on a pretext but it does seem that you are, however inadvertently. Let's leave it there, where to me good judgment dictates at least I do.

I applaud that EWill got a chance to show his offense at Memphis and got his shot at the pros as a consequence, a shot I do not think that he would have gotten so soon, or perhaps at all, had he remained at Duke, given whom they had coming in last year to make for a slow down offense headed by Jon and 4 bigs around which a non-pressure defense could be organized, and given how recruiting has gone. I'm also glad he got to start and show some of his stuff while still at Duke. A win-win for all concerned. Done?

pfrduke
11-30-2010, 01:28 PM
I'm really not trying to make the case that EWill's hardship exemption was gotten on a pretext but it does seem that you are, however inadvertently. Let's leave it there, where to me good judgment dictates at least I do.

I applaud that EWill got a chance to show his offense at Memphis and got his shot at the pros as a consequence, a shot I do not think that he would have gotten so soon, or perhaps at all, had he remained at Duke, given whom they had coming in last year to make for a slow down offense headed by Jon and 4 bigs around which a non-pressure defense could be organized, and given how recruiting has gone. I'm also glad he got to start and show some of his stuff while still at Duke. A win-win for all concerned. Done?

Quite to the contrary, and I must have been confused by your point. My intended point (made, admittedly, in a slightly obtuse way) was that the decision as to whether to leave Duke for Memphis was a very different one than the decision to leave Memphis for the NBA. I think that had he felt he had the opportunity to leave for the NBA after his first year, he would have done so, rather than transfer. Because he didn't, it was easier on him and his family to spend the next season closer to home, and the hardship rules allowed him to do so and still play basketball. When the opportunity to go pro after year 2 came around, it made sense to go and earn, rather than stay at home.

I'm just saying that there's nothing nefarious, to me, about the way Williams handled the entire situation, and I read your posts to suggest that there might be. If that's not what you were suggesting, my bad.

uh_no
11-30-2010, 01:35 PM
And, now it gets more interesting, how likely is it that EWill even knew that such a thing as a hardship exemption of the sort he received was even possible? To anyone's knowledge, was one ever granted on such grounds previously?.

they are quite common and often used when at all possible to avoid sitting out a year....my guess is that both K and E realized that duke was not going to work, so they found a way to move him sompleace better.....memphis was perfect because he wouldn't have to sit out a year and had the kind of culture E thrived in. I don't ever imagine K trying to keep a kid here who didn't belong here....I'm sure K did actually give E his full support and wholeheartedly hopes that he has great success in his NBA future....to think that K wanted anything other than that for E is silly

77devil
11-30-2010, 02:03 PM
I agree and said so. That said, how speculative is it that EWill, who from all in-time reports was mightily unhappy during his pre-starting days at Duke, was in constant contact with the guy who recruited him, that would be Dawkins, and not any Duke coaches. And, given the fact that EWill entered the draft and left his Moms after one year and she still seems to be ticking same as when he was at Duke, is it really unreasonable to think that perhaps being near his Moms might not have been the real reason behind his desire to transfer from Duke?

And, now it gets more interesting, how likely is it that EWill even knew that such a thing as a hardship exemption of the sort he received was even possible? To anyone's knowledge, was one ever granted on such grounds previously?

And, was EWill going to start for Duke the ensuing year? With Mason coming in to join his brother Miles, it seemed certain that EWill was almost certainly going to be a 6th man at best, which oh so was not getting him to the pros.

So, while, as I said, questions into the gray area of how ideas like this get germinated don't get asked, and I think that that is as it should be. In fact, I'll take it a step further, I do not see that a penalty put on transferring--the need to sit out a year--makes any sense in today's sports scene, if it ever did before.

But, I do think that the story behind the EWill transfer was far more nuanced then the final product--an announcement at season's end that EWill with K's full support would be pursuing a hardship based transfer to be near his ill-Mom--suggests. Nuance, as I've said, is the stuff that sound judgments are made of, along with discretion, judgment, proportionality. And, I think that nuance and judgment should have dictated that the label "cheat" should not have been slung onto my boy. On the other hand, Pearl is my boy in no small part for the same reason that Larry Brown is, so maybe my defense of both has a certain bias. Memory serves you were calling Larry a cheat and worse too, which I also thought was over the top. Interesting.

At the risk of getting a little off topic, your memory serves you wrong. I never referred to either of your boys as cheaters. I did write that Pearl knowingly and willfully violated NCAA rules, which is a fact, and as another poster reminded us, subsequently lied to the NCAA, which was worse than the violations. How many times has it been demonstrated that the attempted cover up is worse than the event? Put whatever label on Bruce Pearl that you wish. I can only conclude that you believe that willful misconduct and dishonesty is acceptable behavior if the misconduct is minor and the rules are inappropriate in your opinion. That's an interesting ethical position.

As for Larry, I'll let his record of leaving 2 out of 2 college programs with NCAA sanctions speak for itself. I don't count Davidson because he wasn't there long enough to break any rules.

Whether or not your hypothesis about E-Will has any basis in fact, to suggest that whatever occurred behind the scene rises to the the same level of inappropriate behavior as Pearl's is absurd. There is nothing credible that I've seen in the public domain that indicates E-Wills mother was not seriously ill. Your argument that Coach K may have participated in a conspiracy is cynical and antithetical to his 30 year plus record and demonstrated standard of conduct.

sagegrouse
11-30-2010, 02:38 PM
At the risk of getting a little off topic, your memory serves you wrong. I never referred to either of your boys as cheaters. I did write that Pearl knowingly and willfully violated NCAA rules, which is a fact, and as another poster reminded us, subsequently lied to the NCAA, which was worse than the violations. How many times has it been demonstrated that the attempted cover up is worse than the event? Put whatever label on Bruce Pearl that you wish. I can only conclude that you believe that willful misconduct and dishonesty is acceptable behavior if the misconduct is minor and the rules are inappropriate in your opinion. That's an interesting ethical position.

As for Larry, I'll let his record of leaving 2 out of 2 college programs with NCAA sanctions speak for itself. I don't count Davidson because he wasn't there long enough to break any rules.

Whether or not your hypothesis about E-Will has any basis in fact, to suggest that whatever occurred behind the scene rises to the the same level of inappropriate behavior as Pearl's is absurd. There is nothing credible that I've seen in the public domain that indicates E-Wills mother was not seriously ill. Your argument that Coach K may have participated in a conspiracy is cynical and antithetical to his 30 year plus record and demonstrated standard of conduct.

WRT knowing the ins and outs of the NCAA rules -- I believe the players know or have every opportunity to learn all the nuances. After all, it's the world they inhabit. Just as someone in an Army barracks (please channel wooden buildings, like in Here to Eternity) knows every rule and regulation in the Army.

WRT EWill: I am not sure I would like all the decisions I made at age 19 or 20 subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. He was wrestling with his future course as a professional basketball player and his current satisfaction (family and school) and made a decision that was in part rational, I suppose, and in part emotional, I would bet. I am sure this paragraph clears this up totally.

WRT Larry Brown: in many ways he is the most fascinating character to ever come down the pike of American basketball -- a coaching genius with amazing success in many different contexts. Even the iconic Dukie, Christian Laettner, rued that he never had the kind of coach that could have truly developed him as a player, "like Larry Brown or Pat Riley." But my favorite description of Larry is by his friend and former camper, Tony Kornheiser: "A brilliant coach, but after a couple of seasons, he hates all his players, and they all hate him."

WRT Bruce Pearl: I wouldn't call him stupid. After all, many otherwise distinguished people, including two US Presidents, never learned that the coverup is worse than the crime.

sagegrouse
'Yeah, yeah! I know Larry Brown was a flameout as the Olympics coach. IMHO (where the H is characteristically silent) it doesn't prove that K is a better coach, but it does suggest that K is far, far better at building a long-term program, such as USA Basketball -- or Duke basketball. I mean, Larry can never be accused of staying long enough any place to build a program!'

'And BTW the legendary brawl between Art Heyman and Larry during the 1961 season, which the sagegrouse attended as a fledgling, occurred only because Larry was on the Carolina bench, not on the court, and the benches were behind the basket, not on the side.'

greybeard
11-30-2010, 09:26 PM
WRT knowing the ins and outs of the NCAA rules -- I believe the players know or have every opportunity to learn all the nuances. After all, it's the world they inhabit. Just as someone in an Army barracks (please channel wooden buildings, like in Here to Eternity) knows every rule and regulation in the Army.

WRT EWill: I am not sure I would like all the decisions I made at age 19 or 20 subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. He was wrestling with his future course as a professional basketball player and his current satisfaction (family and school) and made a decision that was in part rational, I suppose, and in part emotional, I would bet. I am sure this paragraph clears this up totally.

WRT Larry Brown: in many ways he is the most fascinating character to ever come down the pike of American basketball -- a coaching genius with amazing success in many different contexts. Even the iconic Dukie, Christian Laettner, rued that he never had the kind of coach that could have truly developed him as a player, "like Larry Brown or Pat Riley." But my favorite description of Larry is by his friend and former camper, Tony Kornheiser: "A brilliant coach, but after a couple of seasons, he hates all his players, and they all hate him."

WRT Bruce Pearl: I wouldn't call him stupid. After all, many otherwise distinguished people, including two US Presidents, never learned that the coverup is worse than the crime.

sagegrouse
'Yeah, yeah! I know Larry Brown was a flameout as the Olympics coach. IMHO (where the H is characteristically silent) it doesn't prove that K is a better coach, but it does suggest that K is far, far better at building a long-term program, such as USA Basketball -- or Duke basketball. I mean, Larry can never be accused of staying long enough any place to build a program!'

'And BTW the legendary brawl between Art Heyman and Larry during the 1961 season, which the sagegrouse attended as a fledgling, occurred only because Larry was on the Carolina bench, not on the court, and the benches were behind the basket, not on the side.'

Great job! Couple of comments.

1. There are cover ups and there are cover ups; they might all be stupid, but they are not all equal. Nor are all purposeful violations of rules, some of which are inane. Yes, one has to pay what one has to pay, and Pearl did.

2. Larry Brown, the genuis and the short half-life. For those who have written about it, being total, complete, into the body mind, seeking to approach being that, is like the moth and the flame. Larry's genuis as a coach, in my view, and I met him once for a nano second after the Olympic Trials in 63' at St. Johns so take this as observations from afar, is that he has an unparalleled ability to see and understand how a player can maximum his value, realistically do that, within the context of the players he is joined with. He then helps each understand, see, feel, where he will help them go, and through some sort of alchemy involving "doing" that Larry's matches with language that that specific player can hear, creates an environment for both skill and understanding development beyond anything that that player could even imagine before. And, here is where it gets interesting, you could and he did develop Ben Wallace, for example, to be integral on offense, dangerous even, but it would have meant nothing if he did not lead Billips and the others understand and appreciate what Ben Wallace could do, and what their options were in an offense that Larry constructed, or should I say offenses, to see and act upon which would give Wallace the opportunity to manifest the potential he had acquired.

Larry does that better with an entire squad, at least the players who will see the court, then anyone in the game. His genuis even soothed the soul of Rasheed, who I think shares a similar ability sans the ability to communicate, but whom I think understands self use and the dynamics at play in the game as well as anyone who has played. But, in creating this ability to think and see the possible for a team, to develop skills and vision in each person to make them more potent and to understand how that potency was dependent on creating opportunity for "the other" to similarly express his brilliance, Larry brought hmself and them ever closer to the flame.

This place, I suggest, is one that is at once of tremendous peace but also fragility, and is fraught with the biggest danger of all, the ego mind intruding to claim credit for that which lies closer to the soul. Larry could bring players as individuals together as one, he could be so close to their individual and collective thoughts to be an impresserio as a bench coach, tweaking this and that on the fly with almost no peer, but he lacks the ability to manage the closeness to the flame.

Phil understands how the genusis of team performance lies in the search for individual completeness that begins with the surrender, the knowing surrender of each a part of what would seemingly prevent them from ever attaining it, a surrender implied in the poetic of "the journey" which Phil had all the Lakers speaking of when they won it all two years ago, in the poetic of the Lakota warrier surrendering the prizes of the victory to the lesser in the tribe as soon as the battle was won, in his use of Runyan's "The Wolf." entoning as they headed for the first of their now two peat, his use of Lakota ritual and Kiplings' "The Wolf" during the vision quest that brought Michael and his teammates such success.

K, I think, calls upon the lineage of the Point, of the great warrier kings of history, to keep those who approach it from joining the flame, from forgetting the surrender of ego that created the journey to begin with. K is Gengis Khan, Alexandar the Great; he creates the opportunity for nobility in battle to win the day a reality for the young men who surround him, whether they are a group of 18 year olds or superstars named LeBron, Wade or Bosh. So, yes, K can do what Larry cannot, he can hold fast near the light and attraction of the flame and inspire those around him to do the same.

As for Larry's Olympic Experience, that was destroyed when Wallace, Billips, and Rip, abandoned their coach after they had reached the mountain top and thought that, because they had, they could do it again without him, no, more still, wanted to prove that they could do it all without him. They cost this country a legitimate shot at gold, they and Larry's inability to keep them from the flame.

And, yeap, deep in places he'd never say on the air, Tony knows this is so. Why wouldn't he say it. Come on, how much crazier after reading this does everyone here think that I am, which is really saying something considering where I began, right.

greybeard
11-30-2010, 09:59 PM
'And BTW the legendary brawl between Art Heyman and Larry during the 1961 season, which the sagegrouse attended as a fledgling, occurred only because Larry was on the Carolina bench, not on the court, and the benches were behind the basket, not on the side.'

From what I understand, that fight began and never stopped since they were young kids from neighboring towns and continued through a fierce and often fight-laced high school rivalry. Say, you didn't know Brian McSweeney, who captained UNC and started for them I think it was Dean's first or second year?

As old grads, he and I used to play half court games at our high school; Matt Lawrence and his brother Mitch played in those games too, along with their teammate Keith Glass, Larry's defacto kid brother. The three of them were heading into their senior year. When Matt and Mitch weren't clowning around, which wasn't that often, they both had pretty good games. Yes, I was, much in fact, at the time, that would include all of them, including Brian who was well, well, well past his prime by then. But let me be clear, I wasn't in the same universe as Brian, the high school player of the year on Long Island the year on LI the year after Heyman won the honor, when I was just a kid who got to watch him play some. Man was he something. Brian's junior year, he was the second best player on our high school team. The best player, Tommy Pearsal, was even more of a blur than Larry and went to the basket better than anyone I ever saw, until I saw Iverson. Three time first time little All American, Tommy became. Man, there were some players on the South Shore of Long Island in those days, really quite amazing.