Possible Issue with the Poythress Offer?

[Newton_14]

WRAL's Joe Ovies and ABC11 are reporting there could be a problem with the Poythress offer. Seems coaches cannot make an official scholarship offer during an AAU event until the player's team is eliminated from the tournament. According to the report, it appears Coach K made the offer prior to Poythress's team being eliminated.

Not sure if this is much ado over nothing or if it is in fact a minor violation. Sure hope not.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/9929281/

[Greg_Newton]

WRAL's Joe Ovies and ABC11 are reporting there could be a problem with the Poythress offer. Seems coaches cannot make an official scholarship offer during an AAU event until the player's team is eliminated from the tournament. According to the report, it appears Coach K made the offer prior to Poythress's team being eliminated.

Not sure if this is much ado over nothing or if it is in fact a minor violation. Sure hope not.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/9929281/

This was originated by a bunch of idiots at Kentucky Sports Radio, who wrote [sic] "Hey if K offered him before the game it would have been a recruiting violation, so maybe K offered him before the game and it's a recruiting violation?!".

I'm not speaking off inside info or anything here, but even the stories that report linked state the K offered after the game, and a comment from some media-someone on the original KSR rumor-mongering story said he had confirmed that this was in fact the case (which is entirely legal, as I understand it). Hopefully they nip this in the bud before media gets going on what seems to be a UK-originated lie.

Also, it doesn't even logically make sense, NCAA rules aside. You're Coach K, you've seen this guy play in person maybe five total hours... do you really need to offer him so urgently that you can't wait 2 hours to watch him play one last time, given that you already flew across the country to be in the building? I would have hoped that all these news outlets would have done a tiny bit of due diligence, not to mention use a little common sense.

[davekay1971]

In addition to the reprehensible early offer to Poythress, my sources indicate that there's more going on in the K camp.

1) From 2008-2011, Coach K hired a student tutor/nanny for his grandson. That tutor worked closely with the athletic department and appears to have written or helped to write several papers for members of the basketball team. Coach K claims no knowledge.

2) Duke Men's Basketball Associate Head Coach Chris Collins has received direct payments from an NBA agent for years. The agent states these payments are a friendly loan. Chris Collins agrees and notes, "Very friendly" with a knowing wink. Collins also apparently has the nickname "White Santa". Coach K claims no knowledge.

3) Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, and Mason Plumlee were hanging out at the same agent's Miami beachhouse last summer. They had their room, board, plane tickets, and brand new Escalades paid for by the agent. Coach K claims no knowledge.

4) Kyle Singler had over $2000 of parking tickets on 5 different cars with 9 different tags during his junior and senior years. Coach K's nanny/tutor paid for them out of her tutoring/nannying money. Coach K claims no knowledge.

[DUKIE V(A)]

This was originated by a bunch of idiots at Kentucky Sports Radio, who wrote [sic] "Hey if K offered him before the game it would have been a recruiting violation, so maybe K offered him before the game and it's a recruiting violation?!".

I'm not speaking off inside info or anything here, but even the stories that report linked state the K offered after the game, and a comment from some media-someone on the original KSR rumor-mongering story said he had confirmed that this was in fact the case (which is entirely legal, as I understand it). Hopefully they nip this in the bud before media gets going on what seems to be a UK-originated lie.

Also, it doesn't even logically make sense, NCAA rules aside. You're Coach K, you've seen this guy play in person maybe five total hours... do you really need to offer him so urgently that you can't wait 2 hours to watch him play one last time, given that you already flew across the country to be in the building? I would have hoped that all these news outlets would have done a tiny bit of due diligence, not to mention use a little common sense.

Thanks for this post. I sincerely hope no mistakes and no violations (no matter how minor) took place as that would not reflect well on our program. I am looking forward to all the facts coming out and hope that they prove that our coaching staff did everything by the book. On the face of it, it would seem surprising that Coach K would have made this type of error. Unfortunately, I am sure that even if it is proven that Caoch K did everything by the book, folks will treat it as an international incident and believe what they will want to believe.

[oldnavy]

So let me understand this rule. You can offer a kid a scholarship, just not while his team is alive in an AAU tournament? Can anyone explain the rational behind this rule?

If this is true and coach K violated the rule, by all means take the hit. But I cannot see how this rule could possibly be of any help in protecting the integrity of the amateur game. Like I have said before, with minutia such as this, you cannot possibly be 100% with the NCAA.

"Hey kid, really love your skills, but could you lose the next game, I’ve got a plane to catch and I really wanted to talk with you before I go".

[roywhite]

As noted above by Greg Newton, there has been some discussion about this on other forums and it appears to be wishful thinking by some Kentucky folks.

Here is an article from CBS Sports about the offer:
Five-star Alex Poythress adds Duke offer (http://eye-on-college-basketball-recruiting.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29884776/30939421)


On Tuesday night, after the AAU Super Showcase, the 6-foot-7 Northeast (Tenn.) forward picked up an offer from Duke and head coach Mike Krzyzewski.

“It felt pretty good,” Poythress said Thursday morning. “It was pretty exciting to talk to Coach K. He said he saw me play at the Super Showcase and Peach Jam, and he liked what he saw.”

[BD80]

In addition to the reprehensible early offer to Poythress, my sources indicate that there's more going on in the K camp.

1) From 2008-2011, Coach K hired a student tutor/nanny for his grandson. That tutor worked closely with the athletic department and appears to have written or helped to write several papers for members of the basketball team. Coach K claims no knowledge.

2) Duke Men's Basketball Associate Head Coach Chris Collins has received direct payments from an NBA agent for years. The agent states these payments are a friendly loan. Chris Collins agrees and notes, "Very friendly" with a knowing wink. Collins also apparently has the nickname "White Santa". Coach K claims no knowledge.

3) Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, and Mason Plumlee were hanging out at the same agent's Miami beachhouse last summer. They had their room, board, plane tickets, and brand new Escalades paid for by the agent. Coach K claims no knowledge.

4) Kyle Singler had over $2000 of parking tickets on 5 different cars with 9 different tags during his junior and senior years. Coach K's nanny/tutor paid for them out of her tutoring/nannying money. Coach K claims no knowledge.

Minor issues. What about the fact that one of our freshmen has been receiving direct benefits for years from an NBA coach? Expensive dinners, shoes and clothing, plane tickets, even phones and laptops! The coach even provided a house for the recruit's mother!

[wilko]

this is more akin to Pat Boone getting flagged for Jaywalking NOT taking down CAL-pone for taxes.

[gumbomoop]

I'm not speaking off inside info or anything here, but even the stories that report linked state the K offered after the game, and a comment from some media-someone on the original KSR rumor-mongering story said he had confirmed that this was in fact the case (which is entirely legal, as I understand it). Hopefully they nip this in the bud before media gets going on what seems to be a UK-originated lie.



Duke offered Alex Poythress of the Ga. Stars after his continued good play in front of Coach K.


I'm trying to do some detective work here. Bear with me.

As best I can determine, Poythress's Ga Stars team played twice on Tues July 26: (1) v. BABC on Tues afternoon, and (2) v. Texas Pro that night.

Now, I think "officially" Ga Stars were "eliminated" by their loss to BABC in the Tuesday aft game. But they still played another game that night - maybe, not sure what term to use here - in a "consolation" bracket game, that coincidentally, was televised on ESPNU that night, and replayed on ESPNU the next aft.

Now, whether K did or did not commit a violation may depend on 2 factors: (1) after which game did K make the offer? (2) If after the Tuesday afternoon game, but before the "consolation" [??] game Tuesday evening, was that a violation?

Presumably if the answer to #1 in the preceding paragraph is, "After the Tuesday night game," then there's no possible violation. The CBS sportsblog referred to in roywhite's post above includes this helpful-but-also-muddying phrase: "On Tuesday night, after the AAU Super Showcase," Poythress received the offer from K. This would seem to indicate that the answer to question #1 above is in fact, "yes." But the Super Showcase itself wasn't over.

If the answer, though it seems unlikely, to question #1 is, "After Ga Stars lost to BABC and were thus 'eliminated,'- but before the Ga Stars game on Tuesday night,'" then I suppose it's possible that K was required by NCAA rules to wait until after Ga Stars final game that night to make an offer, and thus committed a violation.

Further, if K was required to wait until the Super Showcase itself was over, well, that would seem to indicate a violation, as it seems clear that the offer was made sometime Tuesday, and the Showcase final was played Wed night.

[roywhite]

Saw this posted in another forum (tip of the hat to our friend airowe)

some guidelines about this rule (http://www.msueagles.com/documents/2011/6/9/Contact%20With%20a%20Men's%20Basketball%20Prospect ive%20Student-Athlete%20on%20an%20Extended%20Road%20Trip%20Durin g%20July%20Evaluation%20Period%20(I).pdf?id=338)


....until the prospect is released by the appropriate
authorities after the completion of the team's final competition of the road trip.

So, after the player's team finished up, such contact would be okay, it appears.

[CameronBornAndBred]

If a violation of this nature did occur, college basketball sources said, the NCAA would likely consider it a minor violation resulting in the offer being rescinded or Duke's coaches losing a day or two of off-campus recruiting.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/07/30/article/duke_looking_into_possible_secondary_violation_by_ coach_k


So if the offer is rescinded, is that permanent? Or can we just offer him again at a later date? That would seem harsher than losing a recruiting day or two.

[gumbomoop]

I comment here on roywhite's post #10, and CameronBornAndBred's #11.

The phrase from the guidelines [roywhite's post] - "until the prospect is released by the appropriate authorities after the completion of the team's final competition of the road trip" - raises 3 issues: (1) who are the appropriate authorities? (2) what does "release" mean? (3) when exactly was Ga Stars' "final competition"?

Thus, did some "appropriate authorities" actually "release" Poythress to talk to coaches? And did K make the offer after the Ga Stars "final competition"?

The phrase from the [I]News-Record article [CB&B's post] - "If a violation of this nature did occur" - is obviously still the first, and most important, issue. The answer, I still think, depends on the issues I noted in post #9, now amended by these issues relating to the vague phrase, "released by the appropriate authorities."

If the appropriate authorities released Poythress after the Ga Stars game on Tues eve 7/26, and if K made the offer after said release, then surely no violation occurred. If the offer was tendered earlier in the day, or if K failed to check with the "appropriate releasing authorities," then I guess a violation [apparently about as minor as possible, but still a violation] did occur.

[roywhite]

I comment here on roywhite's post #10, and CameronBornAndBred's #11.

The phrase from the guidelines [roywhite's post] - "until the prospect is released by the appropriate authorities after the completion of the team's final competition of the road trip" - raises 3 issues: (1) who are the appropriate authorities? (2) what does "release" mean? (3) when exactly was Ga Stars' "final competition"?Thus, did some "appropriate authorities" actually "release" Poythress to talk to coaches? And did K make the offer after the Ga Stars "final competition"?

The phrase from the [I]News-Record article [CB&B's post] - "If a violation of this nature did occur" - is obviously still the first, and most important, issue. The answer, I still think, depends on the issues I noted in post #9, now amended by these issues relating to the vague phrase, "released by the appropriate authorities."

Just my take, don't have first-hand knowledge:
the release by the appropriate authorities may be something as simple as the coach saying, "hey good tournament, guys, let's get going to the bus"
I've seen some references that K's conversation did come after the Ga Stars final game
K is pretty sharp about this sort of thing; you know he's get a lot of eyes on him from other teams, and you rarely hear about even an inadvertent or minor violation

I suspect we'll hear some comment from the Duke compliance people.

[roywhite]

Did Coach K commit recruiting violation? (http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Coach-K-commits-recruiting-violation-but-will-N?urn=highschool-wp4082)

Well, the author of this Rivals/Yahoo article does seem to think a violation took place.

[gumbomoop]

Did Coach K commit recruiting violation? (http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Coach-K-commits-recruiting-violation-but-will-N?urn=highschool-wp4082)

Well, the author of this Rivals/Yahoo article does seem to think a violation took place.

If the Rivals piece has all its facts straight, then it provides definitive answers to the most important questions I posed in posts #9 and 12. And the answers suggest to me that it's likely K committed a violation.

The only out I see is the uncertainty of the meaning of the word "eliminated," for Ga Stars were, I think, "eliminated" from getting into the Wed 7/27 semis with their loss on Tues 7/26 afternoon. But there's no question they were not "eliminated" from playing in what I can only think should be logically called the consolation bracket. But - again if Rivals has all its facts straight - they were still playing after K made the offer.

Wait ..... Turns out, the Ga Stars Tues eve game was, according to the Rivals link to the brackets, actually an extra game - apparently not in the brackets-"competition" - put on especially for ESPNU. Is it possible K thought that Ga Stars had been "eliminated," since their Tues eve game had no bearing on their further participation? Or did he just mess up by not crossing every T and dotting every I???

[wilko]

Whats the key issue here?
Is it a possibility of a blemish on K's recruiting record; or does it take us out of contention for AP's talents

From what (little) I heard, this originated from a UK person (Matt Jones). Dunno how true that is..
So what is their real motivation. Does it eliminate us as a suitor, or does UK get to be the canary in the mine to say the NCAA rules are bogus? Not sure UK really WANTS to be the compliance vanguard.

[oldnavy]

this is more akin to Pat Boone getting flagged for Jaywalking NOT taking down CAL-pone for taxes.

Except, the jaywalking rule actually makes sense.

[gumbomoop]

Whats the key issue here? Is it a possibility of a blemish on K's recruiting record; or does it take us out of contention for AP's talents

From what (little) I heard, this originated from a UK person (Matt Jones). Dunno how true that is..
So what is their real motivation. Does it eliminate us as a suitor, or does UK get to be the canary in the mine to say the NCAA rules are bogus? Not sure UK really WANTS to be the compliance vanguard.

For me the key issue is whether K committed a recruiting violation, even a minor one. UK fan's motivation probably involves embarrassing Duke and K, but that's irrelevant to me.

I do continue to be interested in what occurred, and when. The following appears in the Rivals piece, cited in one of roywhite's posts above: "Admittedly, the violations would be considered minor, and any subsequent punishment almost certainly would not be severe. Additionally, it's worth questioning whether the NCAA would punish arguably its most high-profile coach for what was probably a simple misunderstanding or misallocation of tournament timing."

If even a minor violation occurred, I would prefer - unless otherwise persuaded by a convincing counterargument - that K himself come forth with exactly what happened when, admit he messed up, and accept whatever penalty is assigned. The idea, broached by the author of the Rivals piece, that the NCAA might hesitate to punish K because ... he's K, offends me. Nor do I find the phrase "simple misunderstanding" very helpful, to say nothing of the hilariously, and unwittingly, obfuscatory gem, "misallocation of tournament timing."

[devildeac]

For me the key issue is whether K committed a recruiting violation, even a minor one. UK fan's motivation probably involves embarrassing Duke and K, but that's irrelevant to me.

I do continue to be interested in what occurred, and when. The following appears in the Rivals piece, cited in one of roywhite's posts above: "Admittedly, the violations would be considered minor, and any subsequent punishment almost certainly would not be severe. Additionally, it's worth questioning whether the NCAA would punish arguably its most high-profile coach for what was probably a simple misunderstanding or misallocation of tournament timing."

If even a minor violation occurred, I would prefer - unless otherwise persuaded by a convincing counterargument - that K himself come forth with exactly what happened when, admit he messed up, and accept whatever penalty is assigned. The idea, broached by the author of the Rivals piece that the NCAA might hesitate to punish K because ... he's K, offends me. Nor do I find the phrase "simple misunderstanding" very helpful, to say nothing of the hilariously, and unwittingly, obfuscatory gem, "misallocation of tournament timing."

I'll bet Duke and/or K will do that, if indeed a violation occurred. That is based on my recollection of a minor/secondary violation that Collins (I think) committed several years ago when he attended a potential recruit's game outside of the established recruiting period. The school self-reported it publicly and promptly and I am not sure there was ever any penalty.

[JasonEvans]

I'll bet Duke and/or K will do that, if indeed a violation occurred. That is based on my recollection of a minor/secondary violation that Collins (I think) committed several years ago when he attended a potential recruit's game outside of the established recruiting period. The school self-reported it publicly and promptly and I am not sure there was ever any penalty.

I may be wrong, but I vaguely recall that Collins took a few days off from recruiting as punishment for that incident, in which Collins was scouting/recruiting John Wall. I would expect that Duke would do something similar here, and have K or some other members of staff cut back on recruiting days by one or two.

The suggestion that K might have to rescind the scholarship offer is also possible, though that would not prohibit Duke from making another offer in the future at an appropriate time. I cannot fathom that a violation of this nature would result in Duke not being allowed to recruit Poythress. That would be absurdly unfair both to Duke and, more significantly, to the player in question.

-Jason "nothing to see here" Evans

[devildeac]

I'll bet Duke and/or K will do that, if indeed a violation occurred. That is based on my recollection of a minor/secondary violation that Collins (I think) committed several years ago when he attended a potential recruit's game outside of the established recruiting period. The school self-reported it publicly and promptly and I am not sure there was ever any penalty.


I may be wrong, but I vaguely recall that Collins took a few days off from recruiting as punishment for that incident, in which Collins was scouting/recruiting John Wall. I would expect that Duke would do something similar here, and have K or some other members of staff cut back on recruiting days by one or two.

The suggestion that K might have to rescind the scholarship offer is also possible, though that would not prohibit Duke from making another offer in the future at an appropriate time. I cannot fathom that a violation of this nature would result in Duke not being allowed to recruit Poythress. That would be absurdly unfair both to Duke and, more significantly, to the player in question.

-Jason "nothing to see here" Evans

I am far older than you, with a more advanced stage of CRS syndrome, so your recollection is probably correct. If there was a penalty, I suspect it was not much and would probably have been self-imposed and along the lines of a day/two/three less of recruiting time like you said. Probably not "nothing to see" but it should be minuscule, unless, of course, some hack like Doyel has nothing to do this weekend and decides he needs to attack Duke/K again:rolleyes:.

[Greg_Newton]

Did Coach K commit recruiting violation? (http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Coach-K-commits-recruiting-violation-but-will-N?urn=highschool-wp4082)

Well, the author of this Rivals/Yahoo article does seem to think a violation took place.

The thing is, no one - literally no one - has flat-out made the claim that K offered Poythress before the 7 o'clock game. All of the "allegedly" and "reportedly"s lead back to this one sentence on Kentucky Sports Radio (http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=88097):


Poythress’ team played their final game at 7pm Tuesday night. If he got the offer after, then I guess it’s no harm. But if it came before, it might be a violation.

Now, Poythress lost his first game on Tuesday 66-37. Is it more likely that that game prompted the offer, or that his 28-point game against Chicken Knowles and Isiaah Austin in an overtime loss prompted it?

The Rivals offer says that there was an additional game Wednesday and links to a non-working "AAU results" website to back up this claim. I can't find anywhere else that says that, and the only bracket I can find (http://www.aauresults.org/boysb/pdfnat/2011/20111311822166.pdf) has Tuesday night's game as the Ga. Stars final game (they finished 2nd in Group G as a result of it).

The only thing that gives this any credence to me is that I seem to remember ESPNU showing a graphic saying Poythress had committed to Duke during this night game, which was believed to have been intended to simply say that Duke had offered, which could imply the offer did in fact come after the 66-37 blowout. So who knows - if that's the case, then let's own up to it. But logically, it doesn't make sense, and there's nothing but unsubstantiated speculation out there so far.

[stillcrazie]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6818918/duke-blue-devils-eye-possible-mike-krzyzewski-recruiting-violation

[Greg_Newton]

Geez, Matt Jones from KSR must be really patting himself on the back for this one.

N&O headlines today:

UNC Football Scandal: Withers Heads The Call New Coach Gets High Marks
Made-up Duke Rumor: Report: Coach K Broke Rule Player Offered At Tournament

Let's start our own rumor. I, random internet blogger Greg_Newton, propose that if Roy Williams had paid Harrison Barnes $5 million to commit, it would be a violation. Maybe he didn't, but if he did, it would be a violation.

OK, now ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, N&O, go nuts with this alleged misconduct!!!!

[NashvilleDevil]

There is part of me that thinks this will take some time to die down. Media has probably been itching to attack Coach K for any minor violation and it appears that they have it with this one.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Geez, Matt Jones from KSR must be really patting himself on the back for this one.

N&O headlines today:

UNC Football Scandal: Withers Heads The Call New Coach Gets High Marks
Made-up Duke Rumor: Report: Coach K Broke Rule Player Offered At Tournament

Let's start our own rumor. I, random internet blogger Greg_Newton, propose that if Roy Williams had paid Harrison Barnes $5 million to commit, it would be a violation. Maybe he didn't, but if he did, it would be a violation.

OK, now ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, N&O, go nuts with this alleged misconduct!!!!
I would like to confirm Greg_Newton's rumor. IF Roy Williams did in fact pay Harrison Barnes $5 million to commit, it would have been a violation, but I have no further proof beyond what Greg_Newton has provided at this point. I plan to look into it tomorrow after playing golf. :cool:

[Greg_Newton]

Okay, this might be the most successful UK trolling job in history.

To summarize, we know the following re: the offer timeline:

1. The Georgia Stars were blown out 66-37 in a 1:20PM game on Tuesday.
2. The Georgia Stars lost 79-77 in OT in a 7PM game on Tuesday, in a game in which Poythress scored 28 points against a team with two of the top PFs in the nation,
3. The news of Duke's offer broke at ~10:30PM Tuesday night.
4. The method of Duke's offer was supposedly K calling Poythress' coach, Poythress' coach telling Poythress to call K, Poythress calling K, and K offering Poythress (why would he have done that between 3-6PM, in the window between games?).
5. The Georgia Stars may have played in a separate AAU tournament on Wednesday, but the window from 9PM Tuesday night-1PM Weds afternoon would have been fair game.

We know the following re: the supposed "allegations":

1. The original "allegation" on KSR was
"Poythress’ team played their final game at 7pm Tuesday night. If he got the offer after, then I guess it’s no harm. But if it came before, it might be a violation."
2. No ensuing story has provided confirmation - or even a reasonable case - that K offered pre-game. They simply reference "allegations", which began with the above KSR quote.

-------------------

Seems pretty clear what happened here.

[OldPhiKap]

Okay, this might be the most successful UK trolling job in history.

To summarize, we know the following re: the offer timeline:

1. The Georgia Stars were blown out 66-37 in a 1:20PM game on Tuesday.
2. The Georgia Stars lost 79-77 in OT in a 7PM game on Tuesday, in a game in which Poythress scored 28 points against a team with two of the top PFs in the nation,
3. The news of Duke's offer broke at ~10:30PM Tuesday night.
4. The method of Duke's offer was supposedly K calling Poythress' coach, Poythress' coach telling Poythress to call K, Poythress calling K, and K offering Poythress (why would he have done that between 3-6PM, in the window between games?).
5. The Georgia Stars may have played in a separate AAU tournament on Wednesday, but the window from 9PM Tuesday night-1PM Weds afternoon would have been fair game.

We know the following re: the supposed "allegations":

1. The original "allegation" on KSR was
2. No ensuing story has provided confirmation - or even a reasonable case - that K offered pre-game. They simply reference "allegations", which began with the above KSR quote.

-------------------

Seems pretty clear what happened here.

Good summation.

I would find it hard to believe that K made a mistake on the timing here -- this ain't his first rodeo -- but if there was an error I am sure it was unintentional.

IF there was a violation -- whether major or minor, technical or otherwise -- K will be the first to take responsibility.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I would like to confirm Greg_Newton's rumor. IF Roy Williams did in fact pay Harrison Barnes $5 million to commit, it would have been a violation, but I have no further proof beyond what Greg_Newton has provided at this point. I plan to look into it tomorrow after playing golf. :cool:

I'll take it one step further... I read on a very reputable website that if if Roy Williams paid Barnes to commit, it would be a MAJOR violation and probably incur sanctions.

[Poincaré]

In addition to the reprehensible early offer to Poythress, my sources indicate that there's more going on in the K camp.

1) From 2008-2011, Coach K hired a student tutor/nanny for his grandson. That tutor worked closely with the athletic department and appears to have written or helped to write several papers for members of the basketball team. Coach K claims no knowledge.

2) Duke Men's Basketball Associate Head Coach Chris Collins has received direct payments from an NBA agent for years. The agent states these payments are a friendly loan. Chris Collins agrees and notes, "Very friendly" with a knowing wink. Collins also apparently has the nickname "White Santa". Coach K claims no knowledge.

3) Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, and Mason Plumlee were hanging out at the same agent's Miami beachhouse last summer. They had their room, board, plane tickets, and brand new Escalades paid for by the agent. Coach K claims no knowledge.

4) Kyle Singler had over $2000 of parking tickets on 5 different cars with 9 different tags during his junior and senior years. Coach K's nanny/tutor paid for them out of her tutoring/nannying money. Coach K claims no knowledge.


I am so confused... From the replies, I can tell that you were being very clever and making a joke (which others got), but I cannot tell what the joke was... Please enlighten me or I won't be able to sleep at night.

[Newton_14]

I am so confused... From the replies, I can tell that you were being very clever and making a joke (which others got), but I cannot tell what the joke was... Please enlighten me or I won't be able to sleep at night.

You've not followed the UNC Football Scandal at all? All those things actually happened at UNC (well most all, anyway)...

[Poincaré]

You've not followed the UNC Football Scandal at all? All those things actually happened at UNC (well most all, anyway)...

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. I haven't followed that story very closely. All I knew was the one-sentence summary...

[WiJoe]

Related topic:

Evaluation period is the time a college coach may WATCH a prospective student-athlete play or
visit the high school but CANNOT have any in-person conversations with the possible recruit or the
PARENTS off the college’s campus. The prospective student-athlete and the parents can visit a
college campus during this period and a coach may call or write during this period.

So, I suppose it is not against the rules for ol' roy to hug Tokoto's mother (WHICH I WITNESSED), do who knows what with his step father and Tokoto himself after the Brandon Jennings flesh fest in Milwaukee in January. WIll that stick to ol' teflon huck?

[Greg_Newton]

Did anyone else catch the irony here? At some point you just have to laugh... :rolleyes:

1953

[jipops]

Okay, this might be the most successful UK trolling job in history.

To summarize, we know the following re: the offer timeline:

1. The Georgia Stars were blown out 66-37 in a 1:20PM game on Tuesday.
2. The Georgia Stars lost 79-77 in OT in a 7PM game on Tuesday, in a game in which Poythress scored 28 points against a team with two of the top PFs in the nation,
3. The news of Duke's offer broke at ~10:30PM Tuesday night.
4. The method of Duke's offer was supposedly K calling Poythress' coach, Poythress' coach telling Poythress to call K, Poythress calling K, and K offering Poythress (why would he have done that between 3-6PM, in the window between games?).
5. The Georgia Stars may have played in a separate AAU tournament on Wednesday, but the window from 9PM Tuesday night-1PM Weds afternoon would have been fair game.

We know the following re: the supposed "allegations":

1. The original "allegation" on KSR was
2. No ensuing story has provided confirmation - or even a reasonable case - that K offered pre-game. They simply reference "allegations", which began with the above KSR quote.

-------------------

Seems pretty clear what happened here.

I can't help but suspect a troll job here either. However, if it is, why is Duke even responding or "gathering facts"?

[NashvilleDevil]

"NdotSmitty Nolan D. Smith
I think Alex Poythress is telling a big ol lie to CBS Sports! I know my coach!"

He does link to the espn story in his tweet.

[jimsumner]

I can't help but suspect a troll job here either. However, if it is, why is Duke even responding or "gathering facts"?

Because we live in a universe where a more-or-less-respected national sports entity can ask readers which Dukie they hate most. Duke made a conscious decision a few years ago to be more proactive in going after this stuff. For years Duke tried to ignore the silliness and the trolls under the assumption that it was best left ignored. Instead, the haters used it as evidence that Duke was hiding something.

Newton's summary seems to be pretty accurate. I'm sure Duke will figure out the proper time-line and go from there. If there was a violation, it was very, very minor. That's what "secondary" means in NCAA-speak. The other day Clemson self-reported 12 secondary violations. One involved a prospect who called Clemson when their car broke down. It seems a toddler was in the vehicle. A non-coach was allowed to pick up the recruit and drive the recruit (and one hopes, the toddler) five miles. The recruit was asked to pay back $2.66. Another involved players living off campus who were over reimbursed by $1-to-$2 more per month. They had to pay it back.

Others were more serious but you can get the gist of what "secondary violations" means. Equating this with what's going on down the road is like equating driving 50 in a 45 zone to robbing a bank. Both are illegal, you know.

[Frybay]

He got security to throw out a recruit's father who spurned him in the middle of a game!
or was that a fan for the other team cheering for the other team in pork dome!

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

"NdotSmitty Nolan D. Smith
I think Alex Poythress is telling a big ol lie to CBS Sports! I know my coach!"

He does link to the espn story in his tweet.

if that's a real tweet, not what I would want to see anyone associated with Duke saying about a recruit. How can that be good? :confused:

[Mike Corey]

Everything is just fine. That's not a guess. :)

Matt J*nes continues to specialize in tomfoolery, as he proves he is worthy of his rank among the most embarrassing Duke Law alums of all time.

Everyone enjoy your Saturday nights. All is well and right in Durham.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

And now it's front page on ESPN. If all is well, I hope the Duke PR machine clarifies soon.

[NashvilleDevil]

And now it's front page on ESPN. If all is well, I hope the Duke PR machine clarifies soon.

It has been on the front page for the last several hours and the write up has not changed.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

This whole story is just nuts. Nobody reasonable thinks coach K, or Roy Williams for that matter, would try to cut corners.

The real question is who cares what time a coach decides to make an offer? Can anybody explain to me why the timing matters to the NCAA?

And is a former all american player really calling a player his former coach thinks enough of to extend a scholarship offer to a liar?

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Everything is just fine. That's not a guess. :)

Matt J*nes continues to specialize in tomfoolery, as he proves he is worthy of his rank among the most embarrassing Duke Law alums of all time.

Everyone enjoy your Saturday nights. All is well and right in Durham.
If you say it, I will rest easy tonight. :cool:

[Greg_Newton]

Everything is just fine. That's not a guess. :)

Matt J*nes continues to specialize in tomfoolery, as he proves he is worthy of his rank among the most embarrassing Duke Law alums of all time.

Everyone enjoy your Saturday nights. All is well and right in Durham.

Thanks Mike.

The only concern I have is the potential effect on the relationship between Duke and Poythress. Once things like this spiral out of control, you get things like Nolan's very unfortunate tweet. Hopefully Nolan can communicate with Alex at some point and patch things up in his usual amiable way once this blows over and no lasting damage will be done; Alex is a kid who already doesn't like media drama like this, and I can't imagine this is exactly endearing us to him.

That's why I'm a little surprised Duke didn't nip this in the bud right away. If it was simply a phone conversation after the conclusion of the tournament, why not just say that right away and preempt this whole media whirlwind? Instead, you've got misinformation being spewed from all the major media outlets, and players coming out to defend their coach "against" Poythress (when he in fact did nothing wrong). If we're going to respond at all, why aren't we setting things straight right away?

ETA: Looks like Nolan's realized he messed up:


NdotSmitty Nolan D. Smith
I apologize for my tweet earlier about Alex Poythress, leave him alone! I don't know the story. Just defending my Coach and School! *shrug*

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

And is a former all american player really calling a player his former coach thinks enough of to extend a scholarship offer to a liar?

That was my point a few posts ago. I, too, am floored if that is a real tweet. Why on god's earth would he say something like that?

[NashvilleDevil]

That was my point a few posts ago. I, too, am floored if that is a real tweet. Why on god's earth would he say something like that?

Nolan's latest:

"I apologize for my tweet earlier about Alex Poythress, leave him alone! I don't know the story. Just defending my Coach and School! *shrug*"

There's is the answer to your question.

[FireOgilvie]

That was my point a few posts ago. I, too, am floored if that is a real tweet. Why on god's earth would he say something like that?

The ESPN article was vague and can be misinterpreted that Poythress actually reported the news to CBS Sports as if he knew it was a recruiting violation. Nolan admitted he didn't know the story and was just going by the ESPN article.

The whole thing is silly. Someone sent me a link from the front page of the Boston Globe with this non-story.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

That was my point a few posts ago. I, too, am floored if that is a real tweet. Why on god's earth would he say something like that?

Good for Nolan on a quick apology. His explanation is understandable.

There will be coaches everywhere after this being quick on the draw to contact players and remind them of the dangers of what they say in social media reflecting back on their programs.

[Mike Corey]

Good for Nolan on a quick apology. His explanation is understandable.

There will be coaches everywhere after this being quick on the draw to contact players and remind them of the dangers of what they say in social media reflecting back on their programs.

Bizarre for a UNC fan to be chiding someone for misuse of Twitter... ;)

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Didn't mean to be a chiding UNC fan :)

I'm old and still trying to figure this twitter stuff out and trying to reconcile the creepy feelings of "following " college kids I don't know just because i'm a fan of the games they play.

Just today Kendall Marshall tweeted he wanted sell his backpacks, like a normal college kid might do, then a couple of minutes later commented that he realized he "worked for the ncaa" and might not be able to do that.

The NCAA is really broken.

[DukeGirl4ever]

This whole story is just nuts. Nobody reasonable thinks coach K, or Roy Williams for that matter, would try to cut corners.

The real question is who cares what time a coach decides to make an offer? Can anybody explain to me why the timing matters to the NCAA?


I can't believe I'm going to agree with a UNC fan :p!

When I saw this story, I couldn't believe how stupid it was. Seriously, is offering a kid a chance to receive a full scholarship to play a sport he loves and get an education a violation? The NCAA is messed up! I understand the rules of when they can be offered and such, but this whole point about offering during/before/after a tournament is stupid. I just don't understand it. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain the NCAAs thinking behind that rule.

Honestly, if this is the worst that we've done, my goodness we are saints. Offering a kid a scholarship is a far cry from paying players, changing grades, ignoring campus violations, etc.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Bizarre for a UNC fan to be chiding someone for misuse of Twitter... ;)
Mike, you can cut Wheat some slack. There's a lot about about Duke that he likes, (including a bunch of us :cool:) and he certainly respects Coach K and what he's done. That said, it doesn't mean he won't poke a good natured jab at us when an opening is there, but that's all it is.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Mike, you can cut Wheat some slack. There's a lot about about Duke that he likes, (including a bunch of us :cool:) and he certainly respects Coach K and what he's done. That said, it doesn't mean he won't poke a good natured jab at us when an opening is there, but that's all it is.

Ozzie, I wasn't jabbing....you'll know when I'm jabbing:)

[PADukeMom]

I was in NYC today & this tidbit was being flashed on the news ticker in Times Square. SMH!

[SCMatt33]

I can't believe I'm going to agree with a UNC fan :p!

When I saw this story, I couldn't believe how stupid it was. Seriously, is offering a kid a chance to receive a full scholarship to play a sport he loves and get an education a violation? The NCAA is messed up! I understand the rules of when they can be offered and such, but this whole point about offering during/before/after a tournament is stupid. I just don't understand it. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain the NCAAs thinking behind that rule.

Honestly, if this is the worst that we've done, my goodness we are saints. Offering a kid a scholarship is a far cry from paying players, changing grades, ignoring campus violations, etc.

The way I read the rule, any contact with a prospect during prohibited times is a violation. The fact that an offer was made is mostly irrelevant. If the conversation had gone "Hey you looked good out there, I'm keeping my eye on you," it would still be a violation. That being said, the offer could still be an issue because the content of the "illegal" conversation could have an effect on sanctions as mentioned earlier (having to temporarily recind the offer since it was made in violation of rules).

I don't know the actual reason behind the rule, but there are good reasons to have such a rule. Let's say I'm a recruit. I just played an early game, and have another game in several hours. I'm not quite at the level of Alex Poythress and I'm still trying to earn a scholarship or better scholarships. Between games I want to be resting, eating, thinking about the next game etc. If this rule isn't in place, I'm going to have a line of dozens of coaches trying to talk to me because they want to make sure that I know they're there or they want to size up my personality, or whatever else they may want to do, and It's much easier for them to do this now rather than wait until the end of the tournament when there rushing to get to the next one. It's completely understandible that a rule would be put into place that allows prospects to think only of their play during a tournament and not worry about dealing directly with college coaches.

The problem with the NCAA rulebook rarely lies within any individual rule (aside from arguments against general concepts such as amateurism), but instead lies in the fact that many of these rules were written as the problem arose, and instead of a rulebook written all at once where all of the rules are written to be compatible with each other, you have a hodge-podge rule book that is difficult to interpret and almost impossible to adhere to.

I don't know if it's possible to write a rulebook that makes sense for everyone (high, mid, and low major schools as well as high, mid, and low major player/prospects). Because of this, I think that some where down the road there will be a shift in college basketball as we know it. This is starting to get way off the subject of the Poythress issue, but John Infante wrote a great piece on this subject last week. (http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/07/life-after-the-ncaa/)

[jipops]

For those into the Duke hatred, it doesn't matter if this is a non-story now. The headlines have been spewed everywhere and a perception is out there... "Coach K... violation". The difference between perception and truth is no matter. Or, this becoming a non-story could be the big story, but with the same perception.

[sagegrouse]

For those into the Duke hatred, it doesn't matter if this is a non-story now. The headlines have been spewed everywhere and a perception is out there... "Coach K... violation". The difference between perception and truth is no matter. Or, this becoming a non-story could be the big story, but with the same perception.

Look, K is a national icon, and if he got a parking ticket, it would be front page news somewhere. Icon? Well. successful national team coach going for his second goal medal. Just about to be the all-time winningest coach at major colleges. And four time national champion.

This reported incident may devolve into a sports civics lesson that will go one of two ways:

1. If there were a violation: Why are the NCAA rules re contacting players in an open recruiting period so byzantine?

2. If there were no violation: How do stories like this get started and picked up by responsible media outlets when there is no basis for it?

sagegrouse

[licc85]

Look, K is a national icon, and if he got a parking ticket, it would be front page news somewhere. Icon? Well. successful national team coach going for his second goal medal. Just about to be the all-time winningest coach at major colleges. And four time national champion.

This reported incident may devolve into a sports civics lesson that will go one of two ways:

1. If there were a violation: Why are the NCAA rules re contacting players in an open recruiting period so byzantine?

2. If there were no violation: How do stories like this get started and picked up by responsible media outlets when there is no basis for it?

sagegrouse

Because KSR and anything affiliated with Kentucky basketball has an irrational hatred/fear/jealousy of Duke and they would do anything to besmirch our good name, including making a huge story out of something as trivial as this. Maybe they are trying to make others look bad now so they won't look quite as bad when their own violations come out.

[Newton_14]

The way I read the rule, any contact with a prospect during prohibited times is a violation. The fact that an offer was made is mostly irrelevant. If the conversation had gone "Hey you looked good out there, I'm keeping my eye on you," it would still be a violation. That being said, the offer could still be an issue because the content of the "illegal" conversation could have an effect on sanctions as mentioned earlier (having to temporarily recind the offer since it was made in violation of rules).


.[/URL]

Actually, Matt, the way I understand it, this is not the case. It was not direct contact. They spoke on the phone, not in person, which is not against the rules. The timing of the offer is absolutely the question here. Not a contact violation.

[77devil]

Didn't mean to be a chiding UNC fan :)

I'm old and still trying to figure this twitter stuff out and trying to reconcile the creepy feelings of "following " college kids I don't know just because i'm a fan of the games they play.

Just today Kendall Marshall tweeted he wanted sell his backpacks, like a normal college kid might do, then a couple of minutes later commented that he realized he "worked for the ncaa" and might not be able to do that.

The NCAA is really broken.

It is creepy. On the other hand, I understand your voyeurism given all the nuggets UNC players have dished out.

[wilko]

Can you imagine a Coach on the recruiting telling the prospect something like..
"OK, I'll give you a scholarship, but you have to show me something tonight. 30pt and 15 boards or the deal is off"

That's A LOT of pressure.. makes a player start thinking about every action. Now imagine if you had more than 1 guy on the court playing under this mindset... What does that do the the HS coach and the other players. Totally interferes with their game.

I'm sure there are those here who have forgotten more than I'll know on recruiting... maybe this could never happen and its a useless rule anyway or maybe its too common and the rule stops nothing... No clue.

[SCMatt33]

Actually, Matt, the way I understand it, this is not the case. It was not direct contact. They spoke on the phone, not in person, which is not against the rules. The timing of the offer is absolutely the question here. Not a contact violation.

I'm going to stick by my original thinking here. This is a "contact" violation. In this case, "contact" refers to any communication, whether in person or via phone. The rule prohibits any communication during a summer event before a player is "released by the appropriate authority" at the end of competition. From what I see, the only legal communication before Poythress was eliminated and had left the site would have been a call to his high school (not AAU) coach. Here is a link to the rule interpretation (http://www.msueagles.com/documents/2011/6/9/Contact%20With%20a%20Men%27s%20Basketball%20Prospe ctive%20Student-Athlete%20on%20an%20Extended%20Road%20Trip%20Durin g%20July%20Evaluation%20Period%20%28I%29.pdf?id=33 8) posted by John Infante, author of the Bylaw Blog and Assistant Director of Compliance at Colorado State. For those wanting to interpret the rule on their own, here is the entire rule in question (sorry about the length, but it's a long rule, and it's easier to do this than link to the entire DI Manual):

13.1.6.2 Practice or Competition Site. Recruiting contact may not be made with a prospective studentathlete
prior to any athletics competition in which the prospective student-athlete is a participant during the
day or days of competition, even if the prospective student-athlete is on an official or unofficial visit. Contact
includes the passing of notes or verbally relaying information to a prospective student-athlete by a third party
on behalf of an institutional staff member and telephone calls. Such contact shall be governed by the following:
(Revised: 1/11/89, 1/10/91, 1/11/94, 1/9/96 effective 7/1/96, 9/18/07)
(a) Contact shall not be made with the prospective student-athlete at any site prior to the contest on the day
or days of competition; (Revised: 1/11/89, 1/11/94)
(b) Contact shall not be made with the prospective student-athlete from the time he or she reports on call
(at the direction of his or her coach or comparable authority) and becomes involved in competitionrelated
activity (e.g., traveling to an away-from-home game) to the end of the competition even if such
competition-related activities are initiated prior to the day or days of competition; (Revised: 1/11/94)
(c) Contact shall not be made after the competition until the prospective student-athlete is released by the
appropriate institutional authority and departs the dressing and meeting facility;
(d) Contact shall not be made with the prospective student-athlete involved in competition that requires
participation on consecutive days (e.g., a tournament) until after his or her final contest is completed
and he or she is released by the appropriate institutional authority and leaves the dressing and meeting
facility. Contact shall not be made with a prospective student-athlete involved in a tournament that is not
conducted on consecutive days until after his or her final contest is completed on a day before a break in
the days of the tournament and he or she is released by the appropriate institutional authority and leaves
the dressing and meeting facility; (Revised: 1/11/94, 9/18/07)
(e) Contact with a prospective student-athlete who is on an extended road trip (e.g., traveling with a team
from one contest or event to another), is permitted at the conclusion of a competition and prior to the
commencement of travel to the next competition, provided he or she has been released by the appropriate
institutional authority and departs the dressing and meeting facility; and (Adopted: 9/18/07)
(f ) Coaching staff members may not send electronic correspondence to a prospective student-athlete while
he or she is on call for competition at the competition site (e.g., arena, stadium). Coaching staff members
may send general correspondence (including electronic correspondence) to a prospective student-athlete
while he or she is on call and not at the competition site or while the prospective student-athlete is at any
location once he or she has been released by the appropriate authority, provided the general correspondence
is sent directly to a prospective student-athlete (e.g., the front desk of the hotel, the prospective
student-athlete’s personal fax machine) and there is no additional party (e.g., camp employee, coach)
involved in disseminating the correspondence (see Bylaw 13.4). For additional restrictions in basketball,
see Bylaw 13.1.7.2.2. (Revised: 4/3/02, 4/24/03, 3/23/06, 12/12/06)
13.1.6.2.1 Effect of Violation. Violations of Bylaw 13.1.6.2 (not including its subsections) shall be
considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the prospective
student-athlete’s eligibility. (Adopted: 8/5/04)
13.1.6.2.2 Additional Restrictions—Men’s and Women’s Basketball. In men’s and women’s basketball,
the following additional restrictions shall apply: (Adopted: 4/3/02, Revised: 4/24/03)
(a) In men’s basketball, contact shall not be made with a prospective student-athlete at any basketball
event during the academic year that is not part of a prospective student-athlete’s normal high school,
96
preparatory school or two-year college season, or any event that is not approved, sanctioned, sponsored
or conducted by the applicable state high school or two-year college association, National
Federation of State High School Associations or the National Junior College Athletic Association.
(Revised: 4/24/03)
(b) In men’s basketball, all communication with a prospective student-athlete (including a prospective
student-athlete who has signed a National Letter of Intent), the prospective student-athlete’s relatives
or legal guardians, the prospective student-athlete’s coach or any individual associated with the
prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective student-athlete’s participation in basketball,
directly or indirectly, is prohibited during the time period in which the prospective student-athlete
is participating in a summer certified event. However, printed materials (e.g., letters, recruiting brochures,
questionnaires) may be sent via regular mail (see Bylaw 13.4.1) to a prospective studentathlete’s
home while the prospective student-athlete is participating in a summer certified event. An
institutional coaching staff member may communicate at an event site with a prospective studentathlete
who has signed a National Letter of Intent only if the prospective student-athlete is not
participating in the event and is not associated with any team participating in the event (e.g., travels
to the event at own expenses not under the authority of a coach at any time, does not participate
in team functions). (Revised: 6/20/02, 4/24/03, 4/28/05, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06, 3/23/06, 4/23/08,
4/24/08 effective 8/1/08)
(c) In women’s basketball, during the July evaluation periods, all communication with a prospective
student-athlete, the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians, the prospective studentathlete’s
coach or any individual associated with the prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective
student-athlete’s participation in basketball, directly or indirectly, is prohibited. (Adopted:
4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 3/23/06)
13.1.6.2.2.1 Exception—Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, an institutional coaching staff
member may have telephone contact with a prospective student-athlete’s high school coach (or high
school administrator) while the prospective student-athlete is participating in a summer certified event,
provided the high school coach or administrator is not in attendance at that event. (Adopted: 4/29/04
effective 8/1/04, Revised: 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06, 4/24/08 effective 8/1/08)

[JasonEvans]

Thanks, Matt. As I would expect from the NCAA that explanation of the rule was concise and crystal clear. I fail to understand who anyone could get at all confused in there. K clearly deserves to have the book thrown at him.

Actually, if you threw the very thick NCAA rules book at someone, I think it would be assault with a deadly (and stupid) weapon.

-Jason "I eagerly await all the headlines on ESPN and elsewhere when it turns out this was much ado about (next to) nothing" Evans

[JStuart]

Must be serious; WRAL TV led off their sports segment last night with the story, and is top of their list on their website sports. But then, they're always on top of every sports scandal in the area...oh, wait.

[gumbomoop]

Everything is just fine. That's not a guess.


If all is well, I hope the Duke PR machine clarifies soon.


Because we live in a universe where a more-or-less-respected national sports entity can ask readers which Dukie they hate most. Duke made a conscious decision a few years ago to be more proactive in going after this stuff. For years Duke tried to ignore the silliness and the trolls under the assumption that it was best left ignored. Instead, the haters used it as evidence that Duke was hiding something.

We're all relieved to read the comment from Mike Corey. I'd guess we agree with Dr. Rosenrosen that we'd also be relieved to hear some pointed response from Duke PR, which would be a good example of what Jim Sumner refers to as Duke's proactive stance.

I will assume that the statement Duke put out yesterday was but the first step. For me, it was disappointingly tepid. Here I simply cite the ESPN [jackals] story: "Duke spokesman Jon Jackson said in a statement Saturday that the school is gathering facts and that 'proper adherence to NCAA bylaws has always been, and will continue to be, a cornerstone of Duke Athletics.'"

Now I can understand that Duke just needed to get out a quick comment, but it strikes me as all too typical of a "PR machine," whose purpose is to muddy rather than clarify. Admittedly, my bias against PR World shows here.

Still, I look forward to a more pointed response. I assume, but am not certain, that Duke will want to respond further, for surely the above pablum does not qualify as meeting Jim Sumner's reference to "proactive."

Let's assume - as I do, and I mean it - that Mike Corey is absolutely right. I infer, then, that this story is indeed, as Wheat noted in one of his posts, "nuts." The general consensus on this thread is that it's nuts because it emanates from some UK-nutters. For me, then, an effectively proactive statement would go something like this, delivered, preferably, by K himself, or maybe, I don't know, you tell me:

K[or someone speaking on behalf of K]: Somehow a story is making the rounds of several media outlets that I broke an NCAA rule in offering a scholarship to Alex Poythress. Allow me to correct these inaccurate stories, and in so doing, chastise ever so gently those who fall prey to the silliest of internet rumors. [Here K or spokesperson goes through the sequence of events, pointing out, pointedly, the differences between what actually happened, and when, and the internet-rumors.] K/spokesperson ends with - all smiles - a request that responsible journalists act responsibly, as surely they are aware that anyone can claim anything on the internet, and that there are fanatics aplenty out there who look for every opportunity to spread falsehoods about Duke and any basketball program which they envy.

I welcome corrections to my hoped-for response here. To make it clear, I prefer something very different from boilerplate PR. I prefer that K/Duke gently correct The Stoopids, and particularly that in so correcting, Duke sticks the knife in about those who envy K's reputation, to say nothing of his record.

Admitting there's a .0001 % chance that Mike Corey could be wrong, I'll say in advance that would also require something other than boilerplate PR, but of a substantially different nature.

[dukeballboy88]

I dont know who the NBE is but somebody that obviously blogs for the NBE posted this on the Kentucky Sports Radio site. Here is the link http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=88097

If this has already ben posted im sorry, I got on here it was already 4 pages but I thought this was interesting.

12.NBE Blogger Says:
July 28th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
NBE talked to Poythress as well Tuesday night after his game. At that time he did not have an offer from Duke…he talked about the interest from Duke and he was ready to cut his list and would only consider the teams that had offered.

On Wednesday morning…we confirmed via text that Poythress had received an offer from Duke…so, it must have come after the team was eliminated and there were tweet activity late Tuesday after tha game about the offer…so, it definitely looks like everything happened after the game on Tuesday.

[Greg_Newton]

"Oh..." (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6821223/mike-krzyzewski-contact-recruit-came-events-source-says) -ESPN

Damage may have already been done, though, as "Duke fans" have been harassing Alex on twitter. Not a good situation any way you spin it.

[dukeballboy88]

I hate twitter and wished these so called "Duke Fans" didnt jump to any conclusions. Your right, the damage may be done.

[Chicken Little]

I can't imagine how coaches can possibly adapt to the twitter/facebook influence that the 'fans' have on these recruits. Even if the relationship with Alex was damaged by this hoopla, he made a note a few days ago on his twitter that he was talking to Tony Parker about school choices. Could this hurt Duke's chances with him too?

[CameronBornAndBred]

I can't imagine how coaches can possibly adapt to the twitter/facebook influence that the 'fans' have on these recruits. Even if the relationship with Alex was damaged by this hoopla, he made a note a few days ago on his twitter that he was talking to Tony Parker about school choices. Could this hurt Duke's chances with him too?

I'm going to assume that these kids are pretty used to being bombarded with admiration and admonition. They are smart enough and tough enough to filter through the truth and fiction. My guess is that they put little weight on "fan" response (seeing as how they have no idea of knowing whether they are actual fans or wolves in sheep's clothing) and stick to what to the coaching staffs communicate to them. The idea that tweets could affect a recruit would tell me he's not quite ready for big time ball anyways...what he hears in the stands on game day will be far worse. Don't fret; let the coaches focus on what they do, and let the recruits focus on the coaches.

[gumbomoop]

"Oh..." (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6821223/mike-krzyzewski-contact-recruit-came-events-source-says) -ESPN

Damage may have already been done, though, as "Duke fans" have been harassing Alex on twitter. Not a good situation any way you spin it.

Hurts to hear about the tweet damage. I was very impressed with Poythress [post #1525 in 2012 recruiting thread].

As to the new ESPN story, my take is maybe [only] a little different from Greg_Newton's "Oh...." Here's the link to the same story G_N linked: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6821223/mike-krzyzewski-contact-recruit-came-events-source-says

My take is that is ESPN is not quite saying, "Oh, maybe we jumped the gun and there's not really a story here," but that, after getting more info - from someone with access to the Duke compliance office - ESPN now states [admits, really, which would be more compatible with G_N's "Oh" if the tone of the story were a little more contrite] that K's phone conversation with Poythress did indeed occur Tuesday night, after the Ga Stars had been eliminated....

.... but - here drops the other shoe - from what? Turns out that the Ga Stars had been eliminated from the "AAU Super Showcase" in Orlando. But - and here the ESPN piece is helpful in clarifying something - the Ga Stars continued to play on Wednesday, in something called the "AAU nationals."

So, there's still a possible contact violation issue. I do agree with G_N that if one reads this ESPN story, one sees that even ESPN gives Duke's "side" of the story, in that Duke is actively seeking clarification of a murky situation.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Can't imagine K isn't all over this situation but what a shame that some jackhole in KY can create a mess like this and potentially drive a wedge between Duke and a top recruit. What's to stop anyone anywhere from making up whatever they want and creating a similar situation? All that needs to happen is exactly what has happened here... an accusation is made, tweets fly and, presto, recruit begins (or perhaps is forced) to think twice...

I'm sure the state of KY is rejoicing right now. Thankfully the world is round.

[SCMatt33]

I posted a link earlier to an NCAA staff interpretation (http://www.msueagles.com/documents/2011/6/9/Contact%20With%20a%20Men%27s%20Basketball%20Prospe ctive%20Student-Athlete%20on%20an%20Extended%20Road%20Trip%20Durin g%20July%20Evaluation%20Period%20%28I%29.pdf?id=33 8) from April of this very rule. Here's the pertinent text from the link:

The academic and membership affairs staff confirmed that after a prospect reports on call to travel with his team
at the beginning of an extended road trip that occurs during the July evaluation period, it is not permissible for
an institution's coaching staff member to have any type of communication with the prospect, the prospect's
parents or legal guardians, the prospect's coach or any individual associated with the prospect as a result of the
prospect's participation in basketball [except for telephone contact with a prospect's high-school coach (or
administrator) who is not in attendance at the prospect's events] until the prospect is released by the appropriate
authorities after the completion of the team's final competition of the road trip.

With the ESPN story saying that Duke is seeking info, I wonder if this is what they will receive. If the NCAA does adhere to that interpretation, there appears to be a violation, as Poythress was not done his final event of the road trip. Now I'm not sure that it is guaranteed that this interpretation will be followed as it seems to contradict the following rule (which is buried in the middle of that giant mess of a rule that I posted earlier):

(e) Contact with a prospective student-athlete who is on an extended road trip (e.g., traveling with a team
from one contest or event to another), is permitted at the conclusion of a competition and prior to the
commencement of travel to the next competition, provided he or she has been released by the appropriate
institutional authority and departs the dressing and meeting facility; and (Adopted: 9/18/07)

Now, that rule may or may not be superseded by a part of the rule (at the bottom of the jumbled mess) that applies only to Men's BB:

(b) In men’s basketball, all communication with a prospective student-athlete (including a prospective
student-athlete who has signed a National Letter of Intent), the prospective student-athlete’s relatives
or legal guardians, the prospective student-athlete’s coach or any individual associated with the
prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective student-athlete’s participation in basketball,
directly or indirectly, is prohibited during the time period in which the prospective student-athlete
is participating in a summer certified event.

The effect of this rule depends on what the interpretation of "time period" is when it comes to an extended trip. The first staff interpretation seems to think that the "time period" of participation during the July recruiting period is from the beginning of the first event to the end of the last event. This would then be a men's BB exception to the general rule about time between events. The time period of participation in a event, however, could also be interpreted to mean each single event, and the travel rule would still apply. Even if this is the case, there will need to be a new clarification, as the two events in question were at the same site and thus there was no "travel" to the new event. The rule could then be interpreted that the night at the hotel between events is either the end of the old event (in which case there is no violation), or the beginning of the new event (in which case there is a violation).

Hopefully this helps to clear up what the possibilities are for this potential rule violation that is likely the difference between nothing, a violation with no penalty, or a violation with a few phone calls lost.:p:confused::p:confused:

[HDB]

Just heard a spot on Mad Dog Radio on Justin Termine's show. The host just destroyed Duke and K claiming that they have a holier than thou attitude and K needs to be punished just like Tressel, Calhoun, etc. He went on to say that it makes you question all of the accomplishments that K has racked up at Duke. As a Duke fan I suppose I should be used to this by now, but I am not! Disgusting.

[WSW77]

I would take what Justin says with a grain of salt (or probably ignore it altogether). There is a reason he is only on when the weekend rolls around and does fill ins. He is
about the only one I turn off on Mad Dog.

[Greg_Newton]

I posted a link earlier to an NCAA staff interpretation (http://www.msueagles.com/documents/2011/6/9/Contact%20With%20a%20Men%27s%20Basketball%20Prospe ctive%20Student-Athlete%20on%20an%20Extended%20Road%20Trip%20Durin g%20July%20Evaluation%20Period%20%28I%29.pdf?id=33 8) from April of this very rule. Here's the pertinent text from the link:

The academic and membership affairs staff confirmed that after a prospect reports on call to travel with his team
at the beginning of an extended road trip that occurs during the July evaluation period, it is not permissible for
an institution's coaching staff member to have any type of communication with the prospect, the prospect's
parents or legal guardians, the prospect's coach or any individual associated with the prospect as a result of the
prospect's participation in basketball [except for telephone contact with a prospect's high-school coach (or
administrator) who is not in attendance at the prospect's events] until the prospect is released by the appropriate
authorities after the completion of the team's final competition of the road trip.

Matt - appreciate the research, but who is that interpretation from exactly? Because, frankly, it seems to be wrong.

If you look at the actual NCAA by-laws (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf), the above interpretation basically summarizes the general rule:
13.1.7.2 Practice or Competition Site. Recruiting contact may not be made with a prospective student-
athlete prior to any athletics competition in which the prospective student-athlete is a participant during the
day or days of competition, even if the prospective student-athlete is on an official or unofficial visit. Contact
includes the passing of notes or verbally relaying information to a prospective student-athlete by a third party
on behalf of an institutional staff member and telephone calls. Such contact shall be governed by the following:.

...and seemingly chooses to include only one of the special provisions in its interpretation :


(d) Contact shall not be made with the prospective student-athlete involved in competition that requires
participation on consecutive days (e.g., a tournament) until after his or her final contest is completed
and he or she is released by the appropriate institutional authority and leaves the dressing and meeting
facility. Contact shall not be made with a prospective student-athlete involved in a tournament that is not
conducted on consecutive days until after his or her final contest is completed on a day before a break in
the days of the tournament and he or she is released by the appropriate institutional authority and leaves
the dressing and meeting facility; (Revised: 1/11/94, 9/18/07)


...while ignoring provision (e):


(e) Contact with a prospective student-athlete who is on an extended road trip (e.g., traveling with a team from one contest or event to another), is permitted at the conclusion of a competition and prior to the commencement of travel to the next competition, provided he or she has been released by the appropriate institutional authority and departs the dressing and meeting facility; and (Adopted: 9/18/07)

Now, if I'm not mistaken, Alex's next competition was the next day, at the same facility (so there would have been no "travel" at all). This would mean that K's contact would have been legal, provided he waited until he left the building, etc.

(BTW, thanks to johaad on TDD for digging this up).

[jipops]

Turns out that the Ga Stars had been eliminated from the "AAU Super Showcase" in Orlando. But - and here the ESPN piece is helpful in clarifying something - the Ga Stars continued to play on Wednesday, in something called the "AAU nationals."


So the same tournament with 2 different names? Or are they two different tournaments? Does AAU even know? Clearly K is a diabolical and shady recruiting monster for this:)

[Newton_14]

So the same tournament with 2 different names? Or are they two different tournaments? Does AAU even know? Clearly K is a diabolical and shady recruiting monster for this:)

Two different tournaments. The offer/contact came after elimination of the first event, and before the start of the 2nd event. See the tweet below from Dave Telep.


DaveTelep
Possible Duke violation is weak. It was between events. It's semantics. Rule should b changed

[Duvall]

Matt - appreciate the research, but who is that interpretation from exactly? Because, frankly, it seems to be wrong.


Well, a couple of things. One, you've linked to the 2009-2010 Division I Manual, not the 2010-2011 Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf), which I believe would be applicable. (The 2011-2012 Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf) doesn't become effective until August 1, 2011.) That's okay, because the same by-law text can be found in both versions. However, both manuals also contain an additional restriction for men's basketball - in the 2010-2011 Manual, it is Bylaw 13.1.6.2.2(b):

In men's basketball, all communication with a prospective student-athlete (including a prospective student-athlete who has signed a National Letter of Intent), the prospective student-athlete's relatives or legal guardians, the prospective student-athlete's coach or any individual associated with the prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective student-athlete's participation in basketball, directly or indirectly, is prohibited during the time period in which the prospective student-athlete is participating in a summer certified event.

Now, the bylaws don't define what constitutes a "summer certified event" or "participating." But it could be an additional issue to consider.

[SCMatt33]

Matt - appreciate the research, but who is that interpretation from exactly? Because, frankly, it seems to be wrong.

If you look at the actual NCAA by-laws (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf), the above interpretation basically summarizes the general rule:.

...and seemingly chooses to include only one of the special provisions in its interpretation...while ignoring provision (e):

Now, if I'm not mistaken, Alex's next competition was the next day, at the same facility (so there would have been no "travel" at all). This would mean that K's contact would have been legal, provided he waited until he left the building, etc.

(BTW, thanks to johaad on TDD for digging this up).

A few things here. First, please refer to my earlier post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?25859-Possible-Issue-with-the-Poythress-Offer&p=512633#post512633) in regards to provision (e). That provision comes from Rule 13.1.6.2. The provision (b) that I posted after comes from Rule 13.1.6.2.2, which describes specific additional restrictions to Men's Basketball only. One of those was the during the July evaluation period, no communication may take place during the time period in which a prospect is participating in a certified summer event. The question is whether "traveling" back to the hotel constitutes "travel" commencing for the next event, or if the night in between is part of the old event, and the "travel" is the bus ride back to the site the next day. These rules haven't yet been interpreted specifically for two different events at the same place.

Second, even if we assume that a bus ride to the hotel is not "travel" and therefore no "travel" occurs, there is still a question of being "released by the proper authority." Do any of the same people run both events? Is it treated as two "tournaments" within one larger "event" that shares staff, chaperones, etc. Is the "time period of participation" for an extended road trip expanded to include time between tournaments for men's bb only by provision (b)? These are all questions that have to be answered to determine for sure if what occurred was allowed.

Third, the interpretation I posted was made by the NCAA Academic and Membership affairs staff. It was originally posted on Twitter by John Infante, who writes the NCAA Bylaw Blog and is the Assistant Director of Compliance at Colorado State. I would not doubt that this interpretation was the official stance of the NCAA in April, but now that the situation has come up, I assume that a larger group of people in Indy will be evaluating these rules to decide whether or not to confirm that position.

One thing is certain, until there is new official word from the NCAA, there is no way for anyone not working in the NCAA office to be 100% on any declarative statement about a violation occurring or not occurring.

[DurhamSon]

A few things here. First, please refer to my earlier post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?25859-Possible-Issue-with-the-Poythress-Offer&p=512633#post512633) in regards to provision (e). That provision comes from Rule 13.1.6.2. The provision (b) that I posted after comes from Rule 13.1.6.2.2, which describes specific additional restrictions to Men's Basketball only. One of those was the during the July evaluation period, no communication may take place during the time period in which a prospect is participating in a certified summer event. The question is whether "traveling" back to the hotel constitutes "travel" commencing for the next event, or if the night in between is part of the old event, and the "travel" is the bus ride back to the site the next day. These rules haven't yet been interpreted specifically for two different events at the same place.

Second, even if we assume that a bus ride to the hotel is not "travel" and therefore no "travel" occurs, there is still a question of being "released by the proper authority." Do any of the same people run both events? Is it treated as two "tournaments" within one larger "event" that shares staff, chaperones, etc. Is the "time period of participation" for an extended road trip expanded to include time between tournaments for men's bb only by provision (b)? These are all questions that have to be answered to determine for sure if what occurred was allowed.

Third, the interpretation I posted was made by the NCAA Academic and Membership affairs staff. It was originally posted on Twitter by John Infante, who writes the NCAA Bylaw Blog and is the Assistant Director of Compliance at Colorado State. I would not doubt that this interpretation was the official stance of the NCAA in April, but now that the situation has come up, I assume that a larger group of people in Indy will be evaluating these rules to decide whether or not to confirm that position.

One thing is certain, until there is new official word from the NCAA, there is no way for anyone not working in the NCAA office to be 100% on any declarative statement about a violation occurring or not occurring.


There is no way that the NCAA will rule that the team traveling back to the hotel wednesday night counted as "commencement" of the team traveling to the wednesday AFTERNOON tournament. This is the gray area and one if challenged will come out in Coach K's favor.

The only real question mark left IMO is what the significance of "released by the appropriate institutional authority". Since the AAU nationals wednesday tournament is completely different than the AAU supershowcase, you would have to imagine that at some point after the GA stars were eliminated on Tuesday night, that Poythress was "released", most likely as soon as he left the lockeroom ("dressing area"), which is in the same line of that NCAA bylaw.

[SCMatt33]

There is no way that the NCAA will rule that the team traveling back to the hotel wednesday night counted as "commencement" of the team traveling to the wednesday AFTERNOON tournament. This is the gray area and one if challenged will come out in Coach K's favor.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this possibility. You have to treat the second event the same as any other on a trip. I would imagine that for most events, the team "travels" the night before and stays at a hotel prior to the event beginning the next day. There is no reason to eliminate the possibility that the night at the hotel is treated as staying there in advance of a tournament the next day and is therefore treated as part of the next tournament based on the rules as written.

There is also the 3 month old staff interpretation from Academic and Membership Services stating that the period of no contact includes the entire trip from beginning until the end of the last event. Since this is only 3 months old, most of the staffers who worked on it will still be there to explain why they interpreted the rules as such. Unless someone in Indy feels that the staff did an exceptionally poor job in their reasoning (we don't know what the reasoning is and aren't in a place to challenge it), I would imagine that the interpretation will likely stand. You're absolutely right that this is a big gray area, but since its gray, there's no way to know which way it will go in the end.

[DurhamSon]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this possibility. You have to treat the second event the same as any other on a trip. I would imagine that for most events, the team "travels" the night before and stays at a hotel prior to the event beginning the next day. There is no reason to eliminate the possibility that the night at the hotel is treated as staying there in advance of a tournament the next day and is therefore treated as part of the next tournament based on the rules as written.

There is also the 3 month old staff interpretation from Academic and Membership Services stating that the period of no contact includes the entire trip from beginning until the end of the last event. Since this is only 3 months old, most of the staffers who worked on it will still be there to explain why they interpreted the rules as such. Unless someone in Indy feels that the staff did an exceptionally poor job in their reasoning (we don't know what the reasoning is and aren't in a place to challenge it), I would imagine that the interpretation will likely stand. You're absolutely right that this is a big gray area, but since its gray, there's no way to know which way it will go in the end.

Wasn't that 3 month old interpretation simply the interpretation of the MU AD, and NOT an actual NCAA ruling? Don't see how it has relevance.

As for the hotel rule, they certainly must clarify that, I agree. I just can't see why'd they rule travel BACK to the hotel, the same hotel, that night as "commencement" of travel for the next day. I mean, let's say the next tournament was in California. If they traveled back to the hotel that night before leaving on a flight the next morning, surely then it wouldn't be ruled as "commencement", right?

[SCMatt33]

Wasn't that 3 month old interpretation simply the interpretation of the MU AD, and NOT an actual NCAA ruling? Don't see how it has relevance.

As for the hotel rule, they certainly must clarify that, I agree. I just can't see why'd they rule travel BACK to the hotel, the same hotel, that night as "commencement" of travel for the next day. I mean, let's say the next tournament was in California. If they traveled back to the hotel that night before leaving on a flight the next morning, surely then it wouldn't be ruled as "commencement", right?

The interpretation was posted by MSU, but the interpretation was confirmed by the NCAA Academic and Member services staff. If John Infante, a respected and well known compliance officer, endorses it as an official interpretation, then I would assume that this is the NCAA's stance as of April. That isn't to say it can't be changed by someone higher up than the person(s) who confirmed it, however.

As for the hotel scenario, I doubt that for tournaments on consecutive days, a team would stay in the old hotel before traveling the day of competition. If this was a two day break, it would likely be intepreted the way you describe, but usually, teams stay at the site of the tourney the night before it begins, which is why it could be interpreted as such.

This is all just futhering my biggest point. We have both come up with several different ways that the rule could be interpreted for or against a violation occuring, so there is no way for us to come up with something definiative, or even something that is likely. We will simply have to wait until new information is released by Duke or the NCAA.

[Greg_Newton]

The interpretation was posted by MSU, but the interpretation was confirmed by the NCAA Academic and Member services staff. If John Infante, a respected and well known compliance officer, endorses it as an official interpretation, then I would assume that this is the NCAA's stance as of April. That isn't to say it can't be changed by someone higher up than the person(s) who confirmed it, however.

As for the hotel scenario, I doubt that for tournaments on consecutive days, a team would stay in the old hotel before traveling the day of competition. If this was a two day break, it would likely be intepreted the way you describe, but usually, teams stay at the site of the tourney the night before it begins, which is why it could be interpreted as such.

This is all just futhering my biggest point. We have both come up with several different ways that the rule could be interpreted for or against a violation occuring, so there is no way for us to come up with something definiative, or even something that is likely. We will simply have to wait until new information is released by Duke or the NCAA.

But why on Earth would the NCAA even include a specific window during an "extended road trip (e.g., traveling with a team from one contest or event to another)" when coaches can contact a recruit after "the conclusion of a competition and prior to the commencement of travel to the next competition" if simply driving back to the hotel you're already staying at could possibly be interpreted as "commencement of travel to the next competition"?

I mean, by definition, that window could only ever consist of the time a) after the recruit leaves the gym after his last game and b) before the recruit checks out of the hotel the following morning; the intent of the provision is clearly to allow coaches to contact recruits during the evening following the conclusion of the initial event.

I suppose you're right that we can't be 100% certain of anything, but I find it hard to believe that any reasonable mind would consider driving back to the hotel a player has been staying at all week "commencement of travel" to the NEXT event, especially considering the context of the provision.

[SCMatt33]

But why on Earth would the NCAA even include a specific window during an "extended road trip (e.g., traveling with a team from one contest or event to another)" when coaches can contact a recruit after "the conclusion of a competition and prior to the commencement of travel to the next competition" if simply driving back to the hotel you're already staying at could possibly be interpreted as "commencement of travel to the next competition"?

I mean, by definition, that window could only ever consist of the time a) after the recruit leaves the gym after his last game and b) before the recruit checks out of the hotel the following morning; the intent of the provision is clearly to allow coaches to contact recruits during the evening following the conclusion of the initial event.

I suppose you're right that we can't be 100% certain of anything, but I find it hard to believe that any reasonable mind would consider driving back to the hotel a player has been staying at all week "commencement of travel" to the NEXT event, especially considering the context of the provision.

First, I imagine this all sounds really weird about what needs to be interpreted as what, but these rules probably never envisioned two separate events at the same place on consecutive days. I imagine that the "travel" rule was created because coaches wanted to contact players who they were watching at one event, but not following to the next event. They figured that after the first event was over, the player was simply waiting around until going to the next location, so recruiting contact isn't an issue. This can't be assumed for events in the same place, but the situation has never come up, and the rules don't specifically address it. Not that any of us can claim to know the spirit of the rules from when they were written, but I imagine that it came up to deal with coaches who watched a player at the last site of an extended trip wouldn't have an advantage over those who watched one of the middle legs.

It would be very easy to interpret the rule so that the "travel" happens immediately, since even though they are technically two different events, from the players perspective, it could possibly be seen as a single, longer event. No matter how you look at it, there is no significant "travel," so determining how to apply the rule is difficult to say the least. They could say that since "travel" never has to commence, he is immediately "at" the next event.

Again, none of us are compliance officers or NCAA staffers, so trying to interpret a rule that hasn't been officially interpreted is a futile exercise. We can continue to discuss whether a bus ride constitues travel, and which bus ride is the pertinent one, but at the end of the day, both interpretations are valid, and we just have to wait for the NCAA to tell Duke which one is correct.

[lotusland]

How in the world is a coach supposed to comply with rule that has to be interpreted by the league after the fact? How do you even know there is another event without contacting someone? This whole thing just seems silly to me.

[oldnavy]

How in the world is a coach supposed to comply with rule that has to be interpreted by the league after the fact? How do you even know there is another event without contacting someone? This whole thing just seems silly to me.

My feelings exactly. If you cannot contact any one associated with the player, then how on earth are you to know when and where the next tournament is going to be or the "travel" status of the player.

The NCAA is such a mess.

[gumbomoop]

One thing is certain, until there is new official word from the NCAA, there is no way for anyone not working in the NCAA office to be 100% on any declarative statement about a violation occurring or not occurring.

IMO, this is the appropriate position to take now on "where things stand." I might add a friendly amendment, to the effect that, "There's no way even for anyone working in the NCAA office to be 100% clear on ... anything." More important, however, I want to acknowledge both the civility and efforts to provide clarity and precision by Greg_Newton and DurhamSon, as well as SCMatt33.

I know it took me some time and confusion to try to figure out how many games Ga Stars played and when, what did terms such as "eliminated," and "released," and "competition" mean. Maybe many of you knew from the beginning that there were 2 separate AAU competitions in Orlando, but that came toward the end of my research into the facts.

Probably all of us knew that NCAA rules could sometimes be obscure, but this discussion between SCMatt33, Greg_Newton, and DurhamSon shows how maddening it must be even [or especially] for coaches who intend to recruit honestly.

Agreeing with SCMatt33 that we can yet reach no definitive judgment on whether a violation occurred, the careful discussion in these recent posts does give me confidence that this is about as minor a "violation" as imaginable, if a violation at all.

[kybluedevil]

He's a former Duke Law alum, who for some reason despised his time in Durham. Furthermore, he has a personal vendetta against the underclassmen, and basketball program. Why didn't he transfer?

[duke79]

Great. This story is now one of the lead stories on Huffingtonpost Sports. See the link below.
As usual, the headline is worse than the actual story. Just more amunition for the Duke haters out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sports/

[oldnavy]

Great. This story is now one of the lead stories on Huffingtonpost Sports. See the link below.
As usual, the headline is worse than the actual story. Just more amunition for the Duke haters out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sports/

Well it really doesn't matter what the haters think. They are going to hate no matter what.

However I think that in the long run the media overreaction and hyperbole will backfire with most sensible fans that don't have an axe to grind. All one has to do is read what the charges are and you can see that at it's worst it was a simple mistake in timing, not an attempt to game the system for an advantage. At the least, it is not even a violation, so....

[fh84]

via DukeHoopBlog on Twitter:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Possible-Coach-K-violation-generates-more-buzz-t?urn=ncaab-wp4039&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This whole thing is a joke, and even if deemed a secondary violation, I don't think it's anything to worry about.

[davekay1971]

Great. This story is now one of the lead stories on Huffingtonpost Sports. See the link below.
As usual, the headline is worse than the actual story. Just more amunition for the Duke haters out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sports/

Wow. Huffpo is 2 days late and short on facts.

This story is quickly vanishing, only to be kicked around by websites anxious for hits on a juicy sounding headline, eventually to be turned into urban legend by the bitter trolls lurking around KY and UNC fan message boards.

"You think K is cleaner than (Butch/Calipari/Calhoun)? Oh yeah, what about Maggette and Poythress?"

[roywhite]

Wow. Huffpo is 2 days late and short on facts.

This story is quickly vanishing, only to be kicked around by websites anxious for hits on a juicy sounding headline, eventually to be turned into urban legend by the bitter trolls lurking around KY and UNC fan message boards.

"You think K is cleaner than (Butch/Calipari/Calhoun)? Oh yeah, what about Maggette and Poythress?"


Bingo. They thrive on false notions of equivalence...."everybody does it" type stuff.

I've heard the Maggette reference from a number of Kentucky Big Blue fans.
I'm sure they're relieved to update their rant.

I find the Carolina fans a little more rational than Kentucky fans, but we're just talking about which ring of Hades they inhabit.

[TampaDuke]

Why wouldn't the travel to the second Orlando event be the same travel he took to the first Orlando event (i.e., his travel from Georgia to Florida)?

If that is how the rule is interpreted, it would seem to jive with the NCAA's April interpretation that SCMatt33 linked -- that you can't have any contact once the travel commences until after the player is released from the last event.

[DurhamSon]

via DukeHoopBlog on Twitter:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Possible-Coach-K-violation-generates-more-buzz-t?urn=ncaab-wp4039&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This whole thing is a joke, and even if deemed a secondary violation, I don't think it's anything to worry about.

To be fair to Jeff Eisenberg, he realizes how ridiculous this whole "controversy" is. In fact, I emailed him earlier because he was still citing that Morehead state interpretation as an NCAA adjudication, and he was more than willing to update the article. Here is the reply I even got from him:

"DurhamSon,

That's a fair criticism. Thanks for bringing that to my attention and for being reasonable about it. I don't fully agree that the clause definitely "exonerates" Coach K, but I do agree there's more gray area than I first thought based on what I'd read previously. As a result, I softened the tone of my post and included the clause you referenced in it.

Thanks again for the note,

Jeff"


The problem is, is that there's still a lot misinformation out there. It's important to get the facts to the media.

[Jderf]

The problem is that there's still a lot misinformation out there. It's important to get the facts to the media.

Sigh. I can barely remember the good ol' days when it was the media's job to get the facts to us...

[OldPhiKap]

Sigh. I can barely remember the good ol' days when it was the media's job to get the facts to us...

motivated bloggers > lazy/overworked/under-resourced reporters

[Duvall]

Sigh. I can barely remember the good ol' days when it was the media's job to get the facts to us...

Oh, I doubt that was ever the case. Certainly not in sportswriting.

[devildeac]

To be fair to Jeff Eisenberg, he realizes how ridiculous this whole "controversy" is. In fact, I emailed him earlier because he was still citing that Morehead state interpretation as an NCAA adjudication, and he was more than willing to update the article. Here is the reply I even got from him:

"DurhamSon,

That's a fair criticism. Thanks for bringing that to my attention and for being reasonable about it. I don't fully agree that the clause definitely "exonerates" Coach K, but I do agree there's more gray area than I first thought based on what I'd read previously. As a result, I softened the tone of my post and included the clause you referenced in it.

Thanks again for the note,

Jeff"


The problem is, is that there's still a lot misinformation out there. It's important to get the facts to the media.

Facts? The media wants facts? Actual true stuff/data about Duke? And what will they do with them once in their possession?:rolleyes:

(Seriously, you do make a good point;).)

[Indoor66]

facts? The media wants facts? Actual true stuff/data about duke? And what will they do with them once in their possession?:rolleyes:

(seriously, you do make a good point;).)

they can't handle the facts!

[watzone]

It seems a lot of you had similar feelings to me in my morning rant - http://bluedevilnation.net/2011/08/monday-musings-news-about-news-that-is-not-newsworthy/

Media has changed in a big way in the Internet age, but fact checking is at an all time low these days.

[Dukeface88]

they can't handle the facts!


Did you order the Code Blue? DID YOU ORDER THE CODE BLUE!?

[cspan37421]

He's a former Duke Law alum,

A former Duke Law alum? Did they take away his degree or something?

[OldPhiKap]

A former Duke Law alum? Did they take away his degree or something?

. . . . thereby bumping Richard Nixon to second-least-favorite.

[NashvilleDevil]

. . . . thereby bumping Richard Nixon to second-least-favorite.

Where do Ken Starr and Drew Rosenhaus rank?

[Duvall]

Where do Ken Starr and Drew Rosenhaus rank?

What's wrong with Drew Rosenhaus?

[verga]

why does it take the NCAA so long to address a very simple (it appears to me) rule violation (supposedly)? This is why fans from every university get so fed up with the way the NCAA goes about their business, they seem to lump all violations together simply by letting the process drag out. It seems to take the same amount of time to rule on the K matter as it does on some of the larger scandals in college athletics.

[Duvall]

why does it take the NCAA so long to address a very simple (it appears to me) rule violation (supposedly)? This is why fans from every university get so fed up with the way the NCAA goes about their business, they seem to lump all violations together simply by letting the process drag out. It seems to take the same amount of time to rule on the K matter as it does on some of the larger scandals in college athletics.

This is Day 2, and it's not like anything is hanging in the balance.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

According to this ESPN segment, (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6823863&categoryid=2459792) Poythress is the one who called Coach K and made the initial contact. Is Coach supposed to simply hang up on the kid? To not answer his calls?

I was under the impression (mistaken, clearly) that Duke had contacted Poythress, and that was the meat of the violation. This seems like a big difference.

[davekay1971]

According to this ESPN segment, (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6823863&categoryid=2459792) Poythress is the one who called Coach K and made the initial contact. Is Coach supposed to simply hang up on the kid? To not answer his calls?

I was under the impression (mistaken, clearly) that Duke had contacted Poythress, and that was the meat of the violation. This seems like a big difference.

Duh! K used his evil powers to force Poythress to call him. Just like he's now using his evil powers to retroactively change the NCAA rulebook to make the interaction legal. The man is nefarious.

[gumbomoop]

I was under the impression (mistaken, clearly) that Duke had contacted Poythress, and that was the meat of the violation. This seems like a big difference.

Rule [I use the word loosely] murky enough that anyone could be mistaken about anything. All we know for sure is that the meat of the violation is the meet of the violation.

[roywhite]

According to this ESPN segment, (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6823863&categoryid=2459792) Poythress is the one who called Coach K and made the initial contact. Is Coach supposed to simply hang up on the kid? To not answer his calls?

I was under the impression (mistaken, clearly) that Duke had contacted Poythress, and that was the meat of the violation. This seems like a big difference.

I think the sequence was (after the team's game...in between tournaments as it turns out) that Coach K called Poythress's coach and said have Alex give me a call.
Poythress then called Coach K, who told him he had seen the tournament, liked his performance, and offered him a scholarship.
So, who contacted whom?

[roywhite]

The view from a Kentucky fan site:

Contact rules are reasonable and sensible (http://kentucky.scout.com/2/1091308.html)


Did Krzyzewski need to contact Poythress immediately because his home was in imminent danger of foreclosure? Was there an entry level position that paid a much larger salary than it normally would at a company operated by a Duke booster for which only one of the player's parents was qualified?.....

I doubt anything will come of the violation, it will be filed behind the Maggette case in the offices of the NCAA investigators.





:eek:

[jipops]

The view from a Kentucky fan site:

Contact rules are reasonable and sensible (http://kentucky.scout.com/2/1091308.html)




:eek:

The hypocrisy is hilarious!

[Jderf]

The view from a Kentucky fan site:

Contact rules are reasonable and sensible (http://kentucky.scout.com/2/1091308.html)

:eek:

Does anyone else just find this adorable? Children are so cute when they try to act like adults.

[Duvall]

The view from a Kentucky fan site:

Contact rules are reasonable and sensible (http://kentucky.scout.com/2/1091308.html)


He's just mad because his gold necklace-ignoring (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010875/1/index.htm), diploma mill endorsing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/sports/ncaabasketball/29memphis.html), fake SAT accepting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html), fake transcript-accepting (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/records_differed_on_bledsoes_p.html), Turkish pay stub-denying (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/sports/ncaabasketball/12kentucky.html) coach is for some reason given less benefit of the doubt than Mike Krzyzewski.

[OldPhiKap]

He's just mad because his gold necklace-ignoring (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010875/1/index.htm), diploma mill endorsing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/sports/ncaabasketball/29memphis.html), fake SAT accepting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html), fake transcript-accepting (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/records_differed_on_bledsoes_p.html), Turkish pay stub-denying (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/sports/ncaabasketball/12kentucky.html) coach is for some reason given less benefit of the doubt than Mike Krzyzewski.

The above is a great example of that old maxim: a well-annotated insult is the best insult.

[devildeac]

The view from a Kentucky fan site:

Contact rules are reasonable and sensible (http://kentucky.scout.com/2/1091308.html)




:eek:


Does anyone else just find this adorable? Children are so cute when they try to act like adults.


He's just mad because his gold necklace-ignoring (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010875/1/index.htm), diploma mill endorsing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/sports/ncaabasketball/29memphis.html), fake SAT accepting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html), fake transcript-accepting (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/records_differed_on_bledsoes_p.html), Turkish pay stub-denying (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/sports/ncaabasketball/12kentucky.html) coach is for some reason given less benefit of the doubt than Mike Krzyzewski.


The above is a great example of that old maxim: a well-annotated insult is the best insult.
You just can't make this stuff up. I am about ready to re-cycle the "Arguing with David" link. I know, I know, I already used it inthe unc thread but it would be just perfect here again;).

[oldnavy]

So our "file" now consists of 2 folders containing nothing? UK has a building devoted to holding their "files". What is amazing to me is how those nutcases can even begin to think they have a voice in NCAA compliance issues.... like a poster said, the hypocrisy is hilarious.

[diveonthefloor]

I am thoroughly confused. Why would Poythress call Coach K after his team was eliminated, and then report illegal contact to the NCAA?

I read in an earlier post that K asked the coach to pass word to Poythress to call him, but did he say when to call? Did he say to make sure the time was acceptable to the NCAA and only then to make the call?

Puzzled.

[MCFinARL]

I am thoroughly confused. Why would Poythress call Coach K after his team was eliminated, and then report illegal contact to the NCAA?

I read in an earlier post that K asked the coach to pass word to Poythress to call him, but did he say when to call? Did he say to make sure the time was acceptable to the NCAA and only then to make the call?

Puzzled.

Has someone said that Poythress reported illegal contact to the NCAA? As far as I have seen, Duke is the first party to contact the NCAA on this. Poythress just told a reporter that he had gotten an offer from Duke and some Kentucky folks started speculating that it might have been a violation, causing Duke to seek a ruling.

[diveonthefloor]

Has someone said that Poythress reported illegal contact to the NCAA? As far as I have seen, Duke is the first party to contact the NCAA on this. Poythress just told a reporter that he had gotten an offer from Duke and some Kentucky folks started speculating that it might have been a violation, causing Duke to seek a ruling.

You may be right. I didn't think of this scenario.
Anybody know what actually happened?

[JasonEvans]

I have never heard that Poythress reported K or has had anything negative to say about K's recruitment of him. That said, it seems some very foolish Duke fans have decided to point a finger at Poythress and send him angry tweets. These fans are working against the Duke program and against Coach K and should be ashamed of themselves (note-- I am not aware of anyone posting in this thread who has done this).

One more note-- that post by Duvall was beyond brilliant. He got pitchfork points from me and I hope from many of the rest of you as well.

-Jason "I give out pitchfork points a lot-- perhaps as much as anyone -- but I wish I could give bonus ones to Duvall!" Evans

[Verga3]

He's just mad because his gold necklace-ignoring (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010875/1/index.htm), diploma mill endorsing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/sports/ncaabasketball/29memphis.html), fake SAT accepting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html), fake transcript-accepting (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/records_differed_on_bledsoes_p.html), Turkish pay stub-denying (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/sports/ncaabasketball/12kentucky.html) coach is for some reason given less benefit of the doubt than Mike Krzyzewski.

Wow..Brilliant post! If you are not a litigator, you missed your calling....Research, research, research and then the Close.

[-bdbd]

I have never heard that Poythress reported K or has had anything negative to say about K's recruitment of him.
That said, it seems some very foolish Duke fans have decided to point a finger at Poythress and send him angry tweets. These fans are working against the Duke program and against Coach K and should be ashamed of themselves (note-- I am not aware of anyone posting in this thread who has done this).

One more note-- that post by Duvall was beyond brilliant. He got pitchfork points from me and I hope from many of the rest of you as well.

-Jason "I give out pitchfork points a lot-- perhaps as much as anyone -- but I wish I could give bonus ones to Duvall!" Evans

Jason -

I think that it was when the story was first reported (wasn't it a UK blog/site?) the "reporter" tried to make it sound as though Poythress had turned K in, when in fact he was just responding to the interviewer's question, innocently, about having spoken to K earlier in the week while in Orlando.

While that may well be true, re some angry Duke fans reacting defensively and tweeting Poythress, I suspect that there may also be some nefarious element of michievious haters/rival fans posing as Dukies (never happen, right??!) taking advantage of the manufactured circumstance to be obnoxious to the kid (and hurt Duke). It is a sad world we live in sometimes...

[MCFinARL]

Jason -

I think that it was when the story was first reported (wasn't it a UK blog/site?) the "reporter" tried to make it sound as though Poythress had turned K in, when in fact he was just responding to the interviewer's question, innocently, about having spoken to K earlier in the week while in Orlando.

While that may well be true, re some angry Duke fans reacting defensively and tweeting Poythress, I suspect that there may also be some nefarious element of michievious haters/rival fans posing as Dukies (never happen, right??!) taking advantage of the manufactured circumstance to be obnoxious to the kid (and hurt Duke). It is a sad world we live in sometimes...

You are probably right about this (sigh). But I suspect some of the negative tweeting also came as a reaction to Nolan Smith's unfortunate shoot-from-the-lip tweet about Poythress early on, when he clearly thought Poythress was accusing Coach K of breaking the rules. To his credit, Nolan quickly sent a follow up tweet apologizing, defending Poythress, and noting that he hadn't known the full story when he sent out the first message. But I'm sure many clowns who follow Nolan's tweets had already begun harassing Poythress.

I am REALLY not a fan of Twitter, which just gives people a much bigger audience for the things they say before thinking.

[hudlow]

I am REALLY not a fan of Twitter, which just gives people a much bigger audience for the things they say before thinking.

Just bears repeating...

[watzone]

I have never heard that Poythress reported K or has had anything negative to say about K's recruitment of him. That said, it seems some very foolish Duke fans have decided to point a finger at Poythress and send him angry tweets. These fans are working against the Duke program and against Coach K and should be ashamed of themselves (note-- I am not aware of anyone posting in this thread who has done this).

One more note-- that post by Duvall was beyond brilliant. He got pitchfork points from me and I hope from many of the rest of you as well.

-Jason "I give out pitchfork points a lot-- perhaps as much as anyone -- but I wish I could give bonus ones to Duvall!" Evans

Yep. It is frightening to see how emotional and reactive some Duke fans can be on message boards and in social circles. Poythress never, ever said anything other than good things about Duke and Coach K. I was even disappointed with Nolan for his role but that to has been resolved. The problem is my mere mention of Nolan can cause people to see what is said yet they are truly blind to all the facts but will still run to another board with an altered version. Some choose to see the worst case scenario in anything [chikin littles] and those folks can send things into an uproar in a hurry. Fans are also starting to meddle a bit too much with players and prospects., Some, actually think they are helping when in fact, they could well be hurting when contacting kids.. Even now, opposing fans have recognized the plight and are posing as Duke fans in an effort to sway Poythress but that is yet another can of worms. The bottom line is that in this day of social media, fans can hamper coaches efforts with recruiting. If you are a true Duke fan and want the best for the program, let the staff handle their own business and just act in a way you would around your mom and not some out of control super fan. People may not be able to see you behind the keyboard, but you owe it to yourself to behave. A little restraint goes a long way for the greater good.


It doesn't help when local papers run another generic story in the headlines on the sports page yesterday when the issue has died in the national media. I guess sales are really down and they need fabricated news. Jason would know better than anybody how media has changed (see Casey Anthony coverage on CNN) to where everything is amped up. ESPN has started to run rumors on their ticker,and sources are rarely ever double checked for hits seem more important than truth. And the talking heads? They spew pure opinion blurring the truth and that alone can cause an uproar, especially among a short attention span society that seems to be thinking less and less for themselves. I swear I thought Vinny P was turning into Nancy Grace right before my eyes in one out of control segment that pushed the boundaries of reasonable journalism (IMO) during the trial. Is that the norm? I guess I am just an old timer in a changing world these days, but I never envisioned integrity going out of style.


Okay, what time does TMZ come on tonight?

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Yep. It is frightening to see how emotional and reactive some Duke fans can be on message boards and in social circles. Poythress never, ever said anything other than good things about Duke and Coach K. I was even disappointed with Nolan for his role but that to has been resolved. The problem is my mere mention of Nolan can cause people to see what is said yet they are truly blind to all the facts but will still run to another board with an altered version. Some choose to see the worst case scenario in anything [chikin littles] and those folks can send things into an uproar in a hurry. Fans are also starting to meddle a bit too much with players and prospects., Some, actually think they are helping when in fact, they could well be hurting when contacting kids.. Even now, opposing fans have recognized the plight and are posing as Duke fans in an effort to sway Poythress but that is yet another can of worms. The bottom line is that in this day of social media, fans can hamper coaches efforts with recruiting. If you are a true Duke fan and want the best for the program, let the staff handle their own business and just act in a way you would around your mom and not some out of control super fan. People may not be able to see you behind the keyboard, but you owe it to yourself to behave. A little restraint goes a long way for the greater good.


It doesn't help when local papers run another generic story in the headlines on the sports page yesterday when the issue has died in the national media. I guess sales are really down and they need fabricated news. Jason would know better than anybody how media has changed (see Casey Anthony coverage on CNN) to where everything is amped up. ESPN has started to run rumors on their ticker,and sources are rarely ever double checked for hits seem more important than truth. And the talking heads? They spew pure opinion blurring the truth and that alone can cause an uproar, especially among a short attention span society that seems to be thinking less and less for themselves. I swear I thought Vinny P was turning into Nancy Grace right before my eyes in one out of control segment that pushed the boundaries of reasonable journalism (IMO) during the trial. Is that the norm? I guess I am just an old timer in a changing world these days, but I never envisioned integrity going out of style.


Okay, what time does TMZ come on tonight?

Well said indeed! Your comments about integrity and the challenges of modern day media are certainly thought provoking. Examples of the blurred lines seem to develop more and more as technology provides more ways to be anonymous and act without accountability.

Technology makes it so easy for a fan to insert himself/herself into the lives of young people whose talents attract attention. Vicarious living to say the least!

[jimsumner]

Well said indeed! Your comments about integrity and the challenges of modern day media are certainly thought provoking. Examples of the blurred lines seem to develop more and more as technology provides more ways to be anonymous and act without accountability.

Technology makes it so easy for a fan to insert himself/herself into the lives of young people whose talents attract attention. Vicarious living to say the least!

You make it sound like flooding the universe with anonymous, instantaneous, stream-of-consciousness rambling is a bad thing.

[78Devil]

I am late to this party, and trying to understand the actual risk of this situation (first, the risk of an NCAA infraction, and secondly a risk to the recruiting process). I have tried to scroll through the posts, but because they were in real time the picture isn't coming together.

Does anyone have a good summary of where we are now both in terms of the investigation, its risks, and whether we have lost all possibility of this recruit?

[Bluedog]

I am late to this party, and trying to understand the actual risk of this situation (first, the risk of an NCAA infraction, and secondly a risk to the recruiting process). I have tried to scroll through the posts, but because they were in real time the picture isn't coming together.

Does anyone have a good summary of where we are now both in terms of the investigation, its risks, and whether we have lost all possibility of this recruit?

Risk: secondary violation if found to have broken rules. I don't know the percentage chance of that happening though. Likely punishment: slap on the wrist or a few lost phone calls. Last I heard, Duke asked NCAA for interpretation of rule and NCAA has yet to respond. Any punishment would likely have no bearing on the recruit himself; however, there has been some negative repercussions simply based on "Duke fans" saying negative things to Poythress via Twitter about the possible infraction.

[Newton_14]

I am late to this party, and trying to understand the actual risk of this situation (first, the risk of an NCAA infraction, and secondly a risk to the recruiting process). I have tried to scroll through the posts, but because they were in real time the picture isn't coming together.

Does anyone have a good summary of where we are now both in terms of the investigation, its risks, and whether we have lost all possibility of this recruit?

To the best of my understanding, from reading several articles and listending to recruiting experts in interviews, it goes something like this:

- Polythress and his AAU team were in Orlando, staying in a hotel room, and are to participate in 2 different AAU Tourney's, being held back to back in the same arena
- After Polythress and team are eliminated from the 1st tourney on a Tuesday afternoon, Coach K contacts Polythress' coach and asks him to have Polythress call Coach K
- Polythress calls Coach K sometime that Tuesday, not sure of the time, but definitely after the elimination from Tourney 1, but prior to the start of Tourney 2, which begins on Wednesday
- Polythress gives an interview sometime after the call, and states in the interview, he had been offered by Duke
- Insane KU Fan Matt Jones sees/hears? the interview and starts this whole mess by contacting CBS Sports, and suggesting K may have illegaly contacted Polythress
- Duke Compliance contacts NCAA to ask for a ruling

Possible Punishment per various articles on this:

- If ruled a violation, it would be a secondary violation which is minor
- Could possibly have to rescind the offer, but likely able to offer again during an appropriate window of time
- Could possibly lose a day or two of recruiting, or lose small amount of phone calls to recruits
- Would not prevent Polythress from playing at Duke, if he ends up choosing to do so

Edit: I meant insane "UK" er "Kentucky" fan, not KU/Kansas. Thanks to Jason for catching that!

[JasonEvans]

- Insane KU Fan Matt Jones sees/hears? the interview...

Excellent summary but KU does not equal UK.

Matt Jones is a whacked out Kentucky fan. Kansas fans want nothing to do with him, I am sure ;)

-Jason

[mkline09]

Well it appears Cal took what CBS called a "veiled" shot at K over the whole issue. This is just typical stuff though.

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/31105822

[Newton_14]

Excellent summary but KU does not equal UK.

Matt Jones is a whacked out Kentucky fan. Kansas fans want nothing to do with him, I am sure ;)

-Jason

ahh darn it! Good catch Jason. I know better than that. I indeed meant Kentucky of course....Thanks for setting me straight.

[watzone]

A good source of mine says Duke will be cleared of any wrong doing. FTR, Duke is very high on Poythress list.

[OldPhiKap]

A good source of mine says Duke will be cleared of any wrong doing. FTR, Duke is very high on Poythress list.

Good deal, and I hope that the Tweets sent his way (from folks claiming to be Duke fans) do not dissuade.

[devildeac]

A good source of mine says Duke will be cleared of any wrong doing. FTR, Duke is very high on Poythress list.

Which, of course, will further the notion that Duke does indeed get all the calls:rolleyes:. Thanks, Mark:cool:.

[oldnavy]

Which, of course, will further the notion that Duke does indeed get all the calls:rolleyes:. Thanks, Mark:cool:.

True, but only with folks that would believe that no matter what the outcome of this was.

Some folks just prefer not to be confused by the facts.

[jdj4duke]

Which, of course, will further the notion that Duke does indeed get all the calls:rolleyes:. Thanks, Mark:cool:.

We deserve all the calls. So there.

[devildeac]

True, but only with folks that would believe that no matter what the outcome of this was.

Some folks just prefer not to be confused by the facts.

You are correct. That is why Arguing with David has become one of my most frequently used links;).

[diveonthefloor]

Well it appears Cal took what CBS called a "veiled" shot at K over the whole issue. This is just typical stuff though.

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/31105822

I don't think there's an epithet which accurately describes the blob of protoplasm I kindly refer to as "Calislimi."

[Doug.I.Am]

Trying to brace myself from the outpouring of love I expect to get if/when K is exonerated from phone call "violation."

This is just another example of how crazy/nonsensical the NCAA rules truly are. I'm personally amazed more coaches aren't busted more than they are.

[-bdbd]

A good source of mine says Duke will be cleared of any wrong doing. FTR, Duke is very high on Poythress list.

And I have it on good authority that on the 'hater' chatboards - in Lexington and Chapel Hill and College Park, etc. - they are already drafting the "see, the NCAA always favors Duke" plaintive, irate responses.... My thought is simply, if you are going to CREATE controversies to try to tarnish your over-envied "rivals," well then at least make the effort/research to make the controversies at least somewhat credible, so that when the NCAA inevitably decides against you, that your resultantant anguish/anger can be interpreted as partially plausible. It seems like some folk's methodology is just to keep throwing as much mud as possible in all directions in the hope that something will eventually somehow stick.

Though not as severe or as clearly criminal, this whole incident is taking me back to one proud UNC grad named Michael Nifong.

P.S. Did anybody else catch the on-line poll on the front of the CNN/SI sports page this week, following the initial generic "cut and paste" accusatory article about K's supposed "violation," presumptively asking for responses to "Should Duke and Coach K get special treatment by the NCAA?" Talk about pandering to the haters...

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Which, of course, will further the notion that Duke does indeed get all the calls:rolleyes:. Thanks, Mark:cool:.

Actually the issue is the calls the refs refuse to make, but let's not quibble ;)

[oldnavy]

Actually the issue is the calls the refs refuse to make, but let's not quibble ;)

Oh, like the 4 years of Hanstravel over on the hill?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Oh, like the 4 years of Hanstravel over on the hill?

Yea, good example. They would only call 1 out of 4 hacks he would suffer through :)

[devildeac]

Actually the issue is the calls the refs refuse to make, but let's not quibble ;)


Oh, like the 4 years of Hanstravel over on the hill?

Beat me to that one but you forgot the Hansflopper calls that were rarely made either1965.

[devildeac]

Yea, good example. They would only call 1 out of 4 hacks he would suffer through :)

It was at least 2 outta 4, how else could he have set the ACC record for most FTA in a career (IIRC). Heck, there would be games he'd play that his FTM alone were greater than the opponent's FTA as an entire team1966.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

It was at least 2 outta 4, how else could he have set the ACC record for most FTA in a career (IIRC). Heck, there would be games he'd play that his FTM alone were greater than the opponent's FTA as an entire team1966.

He was sure hard to guard... that Hanstravel guy.

Ok, enough fun before somebody takes me way too serious:)

[MChambers]

He was sure hard to guard... that Hanstravel guy.

Ok, enough fun before somebody takes me way too serious:)

Few of us here take any UNC fans seriously.

[moonpie23]

i'll admit that he got hacked.....a LOT......but he also traveled almost every time he shot the ball and he also initiated more contact that we was NOT called for...

[oldnavy]

Yea, good example. They would only call 1 out of 4 hacks he would suffer through :)

Well, if the whistle had been blown after the first 3 or 4 steps he took, the defenders may not have felt the need to hack him... UNC fans are the only fans I know that have the all time FTA player in the history of the game (by a margin of close to 100) and yet still complain the he didn't get a call....

[akhan786]

Can someone please clear up what happened with Maggette. On IC and KSR they keep on bringing up the Maggette scandal and since I was just beginning elementary school in the late 90's...could someone from Duke's perspective give me their take on it.

[sagegrouse]

Can someone please clear up what happened with Maggette. On IC and KSR they keep on bringing up the Maggette scandal and since I was just beginning elementary school in the late 90's...could someone from Duke's perspective give me their take on it.

Since I am on a three-hour layover at DEN on a Friday night, I'll be happy to give my recollections: Myron Piggie. Remember the name. It sounds like trouble,... and it was. He was Maggette's AAU coach. After Maggette had enrolled at, played at, and left after one year from Duke, it was discovered that there were some cash payments from Piggie to players on his AAU team in excess of travel costs. This was while Corey was still in HS. I believe Maggette may have gotten $1500. Duke had no knowledge of the situation and cooperated fully with the NCAA. No penalties were levied.

These days, in such a case, if a player were still on the active roster, I guess the player would be required to pay the money back and would sit out a few games. If the player were long gone and the institution had no involvement or knowledge, then I suppose the same lack of penalties would apply.

So much for Duke's failure to be punished for Maggette's "high crimes and misdemeanors." Anyway, this seems to be all anyone can dig up on K and Duke, so you should expect to hear about it for the next 20 years. It's been ten already. Oh, yes and that phone call from Poythress, which will probably always be known as a phone call from K during a quiet period (it wasn't either).

sagegrouse

[jipops]

Since I am on a three-hour layover at DEN on a Friday night, I'll be happy to give my recollections: Myron Piggie. Remember the name. It sounds like trouble,... and it was. He was Maggette's AAU coach. After Maggette had enrolled at, played at, and left after one year from Duke, it was discovered that there were some cash payments from Piggie to players on his AAU team in excess of travel costs. This was while Corey was still in HS. I believe Maggette may have gotten $1500. Duke had no knowledge of the situation and cooperated fully with the NCAA. No penalties were levied.

These days, in such a case, if a player were still on the active roster, I guess the player would be required to pay the money back and would sit out a few games. If the player were long gone and the institution had no involvement or knowledge, then I suppose the same lack of penalties would apply.

So much for Duke's failure to be punished for Maggette's "high crimes and misdemeanors." Anyway, this seems to be all anyone can dig up on K and Duke, so you should expect to hear about it for the next 20 years. It's been ten already. Oh, yes and that phone call from Poythress, which will probably always be known as a phone call from K during a quiet period (it wasn't either).

sagegrouse

Just to add to this, whatever it may be worth, I believe it was proven that at the time Maggette had received these payments from Piggie while in high school, Duke had not begun actively recruiting Corey. Duke's scholarship offer came sometime afterwards. This of course still won't mean anything to those that so very much want to believe K was behaving badly in this case. Those who do want to believe K was doing something subversive must ask themselves this - how would payments to a HS player from a guy like Piggie who is not affiliated with the Duke basketball program in any way benefit Duke in its recruitment of that player?

So then I guess the anti-K argument would be that K knew about it but didn't want this to get in the way of recruiting Corey. Really, with Duke and K's compliance record does one really think they would be willing to risk it all on one kid? It's not like the program was hurting for talent at that time.

[Jim3k]

I think the anti-Krzyzewski crowd looks at the Maggette thing from a variety of viewpoints. Some of these have been effectively addressed here already.

One of those, however, is the contention that Maggette, having received the payment, had rendered himself ineligible for NCAA competition. And, that crowd points to some (perhaps non-comparable) instances where playing an ineligible player has resulted in a university forfeiting games in which the ineligible player participated. Mitigating this is the contention that the $2000 Maggette received seems in part, at least, to have been reimbursement for legitimate travel expenses. In addition, there were other players who received money from Piggie: UCLA's JaRon Rush ($17,000) and his brother, Mizzu's Kareem Rush ($2300). In addition, Piggie paid money to Korleone Young ($14,000) who skipped college for the NBA (short career) and two others. Piggie pleaded guilty in May 2000 to conspiracy to commit mail fraud for paying the five about $35,500. He also pleaded guilty to failing to file a federal income tax return.

Maggette was silent about receiving payments from Piggie until suboenaed shortly before Piggie was scheduled for trial in 2000 and that delay left both Duke and the NCAA without knowledge of what Piggie had done for Maggette. By that time, of course, Maggette was long gone from Duke. So the NCAA felt it could do nothing, nor did it think it should it do anything, because Duke was a victim of Piggie's crime. Had Maggette remained in school, then some steps might have been available. But the NCAA's usual remedial step would have been to force Maggette to repay (maybe to a charity) what Piggie had paid him. Furthermore, and someone may remember better than I, I seem to recall that Maggette did make such a payment after it all came to light.

Kareem Rush continued to play at Mizzu--also, I believe, after making a repayment. UCLA suspended JaRon and later reinstated him; afterward, he left for the NBA draft.

So, even if Maggette was technically ineligible, it was the curable sort of ineligibility. And Maggette himself, may not have understood that he had done anything wrong, particularly if he was under the impression he was receiving a permissible reimbursement.

The incident was unfortunate, but neither Duke nor Krzyzewski had any role in it. It's hardly the scandal that the finger-pointers have deluded themselves to see.

[akhan786]

One UNC fan told me that the jury is still out on the punishment. What I think he meant was that the NCAA still hasn't given out a verdict on Maggette.

Did the NCAA make any statement about Maggette and what they felt was an appropriate punishment?

[sagegrouse]

One UNC fan told me that the jury is still out on the punishment. What I think he meant was that the NCAA still hasn't given out a verdict on Maggette.

Did the NCAA make any statement about Maggette and what they felt was an appropriate punishment?

While the rules of justice may grind slowly at NCAA headquarters, the Maggette issue has been long resolved. It has been ELEVEN years since the problem came to light and TWELVE years since Corey played college ball. The "UNC fan" is clinging to a thread -- fuhgedaboutit!

sagegrouse

[BD80]

Just to add to this, whatever it may be worth, I believe it was proven that at the time Maggette had received these payments from Piggie while in high school, Duke had not begun actively recruiting Corey. Duke's scholarship offer came sometime afterwards. This of course still won't mean anything to those that so very much want to believe K was behaving badly in this case. Those who do want to believe K was doing something subversive must ask themselves this - how would payments to a HS player from a guy like Piggie who is not affiliated with the Duke basketball program in any way benefit Duke in its recruitment of that player?

So then I guess the anti-K argument would be that K knew about it but didn't want this to get in the way of recruiting Corey. Really, with Duke and K's compliance record does one really think they would be willing to risk it all on one kid? It's not like the program was hurting for talent at that time.

One issue that is raised is why wasn't Duke recruiting such a highly ranked kid all along? They must have known there were problems!

The reality is that we REALLY wanted Dane Fife, a coach's son, a four year player and a gifted playmaker from the wing. Only went Dane chose the General did we look elsewhere. Corey wasn't likely to stay 4 years, but he had the academics. The only red flags were from Piggie's program being LOADED with NBA talent, but nothing had surfaced.


While the rules of justice may grind slowly at NCAA headquarters, the Maggette issue has been long resolved. It has been ELEVEN years since the problem came to light and TWELVE years since Corey played college ball. The "UNC fan" is clinging to a thread -- fuhgedaboutit!

sagegrouse

I don't think an official ruling was ever issued, I think it was just shelved.

[hudlow]

One UNC fan told me that the jury is still out on the punishment. What I think he meant was that the NCAA still hasn't given out a verdict on Maggette.

Did the NCAA make any statement about Maggette and what they felt was an appropriate punishment?

I think it would be a generous gesture on our part to let them go on thinking we are still being considered for punishment.

What can it hurt? It may stop one of them from going postal someday.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't think an official ruling was ever issued, I think it was just shelved.

I'm sorry I can't provide a link, but the NCAA president was asked about Maggette at the 2004 Final Four in San Antonio and he told reporters that the issue resolved and that Duke was not found guilty of any wrong-doing.

Let me say that the Maggette case is very similar to the Erik Barkley case that was broke during the 2000 season (remember when St. John's came to Duke and K asked the Crazies to lay off ... that happened to be Duke's last non-conference loss in Cameron). Barkley was charged with receiving impermissable financial help to attend prep school. In the end, St. John's was found not guilty of any violations (they weren't connected with the payments). The "crime" attached only to Barkley, who was suspended (I think) three games. No forfeits. If Maggette had been at Duke when the violation was discovered, he almost certainly would have been suspended 2-3 games, but Duke would not have forfeited anything.

What people refuse to understand is the basic NCAA guidelines on impermissable benefits:

(1) illegal benefits received after the player matriculates are usually deemed a school's violation -- they have the responsibility to educate and monitor the student as to what is permissable. If an enrolled player receives anything illegal, the school is punished, even if no one at the school knew about the benefits.

(2) benefits receivered before matriculation only impact a player's eligibility UNLESS the school (or its boosters) provides the illegal benefits.

[killerleft]

Just to add to this, whatever it may be worth, I believe it was proven that at the time Maggette had received these payments from Piggie while in high school, Duke had not begun actively recruiting Corey. Duke's scholarship offer came sometime afterwards. This of course still won't mean anything to those that so very much want to believe K was behaving badly in this case. Those who do want to believe K was doing something subversive must ask themselves this - how would payments to a HS player from a guy like Piggie who is not affiliated with the Duke basketball program in any way benefit Duke in its recruitment of that player?

So then I guess the anti-K argument would be that K knew about it but didn't want this to get in the way of recruiting Corey. Really, with Duke and K's compliance record does one really think they would be willing to risk it all on one kid? It's not like the program was hurting for talent at that time.

The anti-K argument has never relied on facts. Short conversation, you know.;)

[TonyWR]

One UNC fan told me that the jury is still out on the punishment. What I think he meant was that the NCAA still hasn't given out a verdict on Maggette.

Did the NCAA make any statement about Maggette and what they felt was an appropriate punishment?

Yeah, that same jury is still deliberating Roy Williams at Kansas, I hear they'll start on him once they're completed with the unc football program.

Tar holes, dime a dozen.

[Olympic Fan]

If you see that Tar Heel fan still holding out hope for Maggette punishment, please remind him that the NCAA has a four-year statute of limitations.

Thus, the Maggette case is over and UNC will never been punished for all the violatuions that Lawrence Taylor bragged about in his autobiography.

BTW, here's a link to the USA Today story in March of 2004, reporting that Duke has been cleared in the Maggette case (as I mentioned earlier):

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2004-04-02-duke-maggette_x.htm

But as killerleft so correctly pointed out, the facts have no bearing on the Duke haters.

[AZLA]

The anti-K argument has never relied on facts. Short conversation, you know.;)

Yup, it becomes folklore, which to Tarheels means truth to them

[dukeballboy88]

It was to my understanding that Maggette wanted to return for his sophmore year? That wouldve ben awesome seeing JWill, Maggette, Dunleavy and Boozer.

[JasonEvans]

It was to my understanding that Maggette wanted to return for his sophmore year? That wouldve ben awesome seeing JWill, Maggette, Dunleavy and Boozer.

I am not sure where you heard this. I have never heard anything like it. If he wanted to come back, why wouldn't he? It is not like he was a lock to go in the top 3 or so of the draft. He ended up going in the middle of the first round and coming back to school might have greatly enhanced his NBA draft stock. I think he left because he wanted to leave and felt he was ready for the NBA.

I think it has been alluded to elsewhere, but the K/Duke haters point to Maggette because they say it is a sign of how Duke gets treated with kid gloves by the NCAA. They say the payment made Maggette ineligible and we should have been forced to forfeit the games in which Corey played during the 1999 season... including the NCAA tournament games and Final Four games. They want those wins stricken from Coach K's career win total and NCAA win totals. They point to the Rush brothers being forced to sit out games and say, "why wasn't Duke similarly punished for using an ineligible player."

There are dozens of ways to poke holes in these arguments, but the haters do not listen. In fairness though, it is worth noting that the end result of Maggette taking money is that neither he nor Duke were subjected to any NCAA penalty. Sure, there are legit reasons why this happened, but the haters say this is unfair.

By comparison, look at Memphis being forced to give back almost 40 games because they used a player who was ineligible. I think there are many ways where the DRose case and the Maggette case are very different, but we should at least admit that a hater might be able to look at the two cases and say, "See, Duke gets away with it while Calipari's former school gets slapped."

-Jason "just trying to inject this thread with the arguments that I think the haters make... don't shoot the messenger ;) " Evans

[-bdbd]

I am not sure where you heard this. I have never heard anything like it. If he wanted to come back, why wouldn't he? It is not like he was a lock to go in the top 3 or so of the draft. He ended up going in the middle of the first round and coming back to school might have greatly enhanced his NBA draft stock. I think he left because he wanted to leave and felt he was ready for the NBA.

I think it has been alluded to elsewhere, but the K/Duke haters point to Maggette because they say it is a sign of how Duke gets treated with kid gloves by the NCAA. They say the payment made Maggette ineligible and we should have been forced to forfeit the games in which Corey played during the 1999 season... including the NCAA tournament games and Final Four games. They want those wins stricken from Coach K's career win total and NCAA win totals. They point to the Rush brothers being forced to sit out games and say, "why wasn't Duke similarly punished for using an ineligible player."

There are dozens of ways to poke holes in these arguments, but the haters do not listen. In fairness though, it is worth noting that the end result of Maggette taking money is that neither he nor Duke were subjected to any NCAA penalty. Sure, there are legit reasons why this happened, but the haters say this is unfair.

By comparison, look at Memphis being forced to give back almost 40 games because they used a player who was ineligible. I think there are many ways where the DRose case and the Maggette case are very different, but we should at least admit that a hater might be able to look at the two cases and say, "See, Duke gets away with it while Calipari's former school gets slapped."



Thanks Jason, a very good and useful summation. (Aside, a pet peeve of mine is when bloggers/chatters build a weak "paper" facsimile of the opposing argument, just so they can tear it to shreds. I take that as a sign of weakness in their own arguments. And DBR boards, thanks to people like you, generally want to do justice to the opponents' arguments.)

But in this circumstance, I have never seen any haters actually take on the pro-K and pro-Duke (and pro-NCAA) counter-arguments in a rational, specific way. In effect they don't see it as their "job" to actually, rationally, see the argument all the way through, but rather just to throw up just enough FUD to create some questions they can cling on to (and, for instance, then lob Duke and K into the big ole cespool along with Calipari, Tark, Calhoun, et al).

I'd really like to hear them argue the points about Magette's treatment being very consistent with other NCAA rulings of similar cases, such as the kid from St Johns a few years ago (mentioned on this thread), that the issue didn't come to light until after he'd left Duke. I've never even seen a hater argue that Duke/K ever knew beforehand about the trangression, or was directly/indirectly involved with or benefitted from the $2K payments. In contrast, in the D.Rose case, as I understand it, there were documented reasons to believe that the school was aware of the issue (and some articles I recall even inferred that the school was actually involved in facillitating the cheating) and still allowed him to play.

I'd love to hear the rational arguments against those points, But alas, as you indicate, that's not part of their "job description..."

[sagegrouse]

It was to my understanding that Maggette wanted to return for his sophmore year? That wouldve ben awesome seeing JWill, Maggette, Dunleavy and Boozer.

In support of Jason, Maggette showed no signs of wanting to stay at Duke more than one year. He, Elton Brand, and William Avery were dubbed the Three Amigos (probably by themselves) because they spent so much time together. After the St. Petersburg Final Four, there was discussion on DBR and in the press that none of the three were being seen around campus. I took that to mean not only in the workout room and on the basketball court but also in the classroom. A pretty final decision, isn't it? Elton was the top pick in the draft; Avery and Maggette were first-round picks. Avery's career in the NBA was limited only to the one three-year contract IIRC (and there is always a first time). Perhaps Corey would have benefited from more time at Duke; I think both his draft standing and commercial profile would have risen. But, but... he has made $68 million in salary (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/maggeco01.html) in 12 years in the league ($9.6 million in 2011).

sagegrouse

[lotusland]

We deserve all the calls. So there.

This is always my argument. I mean what would be the point in comparing K with Calipari or condescending to their level in an argument? Duke and K just look worse by association. I always just say "of course we get all the calls, we're Duke and we have Coach K. Why would Kentucky with Cal ever be given the benefit of the doubt?"

[Gewebe14]

So is it correct to say that the difference between D-Rose's case and Maggette's is that coach cal should have been able to determine that Rose's SAT scores were blatantly fake/fishy and Duke would have had a pretty difficult time determining that Maggette had receieved $1000 a few years before they knew him?

Also, weren't some of unc's football players declared permanently ineligible for similar transgressions? Is the difference there that they occurred while enrolled at the school and the $ was given by people with connections to the program?

I have to admit, I don't fully see the differences (yet) myself.

[COYS]

So is it correct to say that the difference between D-Rose's case and Maggette's is that coach cal should have been able to determine that Rose's SAT scores were blatantly fake/fishy and Duke would have had a pretty difficult time determining that Maggette had receieved $1000 a few years before they knew him?

Also, weren't some of unc's football players declared permanently ineligible for similar transgressions? Is the difference there that they occurred while enrolled at the school and the $ was given by people with connections to the program?

I have to admit, I don't fully see the differences (yet) myself.

The biggest difference is in whether or not the player was permantently ineligible or would have only been temporarily ineligible. Corey would have been able to pay back the money and serve a brief suspension (as UCLA did with their Piggie Product JaRon Rush) and then be reinstated. This would likely have happened early in his career. John Wall was forced to sit a game because of an issue similar to Corey's. He got too much money from his AAU coach, sat a game, and then was eligible to play. Derrick Rose never qualified for collegiate athletics and therefore was NEVER eligible to play. Also, the spike in his SAT score and the strange circumstances around his supposed trip to Detroit to take it should easily have been a red flag to the Memphis compliance office. UCLA was not forced to vacate any wins or anything. They simply had to sit Rush during his sophomore season for three games after he paid back the money. And Rush received more money than Corey. UCLA as a school wasn't punished at all besides having one of their own players suspended for three games. There was no loss of scholarships or anything else. If Corey had returned to Duke for his sophomore season, he would probably have served a similar suspension.

[OldPhiKap]

So is it correct to say that the difference between D-Rose's case and Maggette's is that coach cal should have been able to determine that Rose's SAT scores were blatantly fake/fishy and Duke would have had a pretty difficult time determining that Maggette had receieved $1000 a few years before they knew him?


To my mind, I think in both player's cases the problem is on the player and not the coach. No reason to think that K knew of the situation with Maggette, and I actually think (gulp) that Cal gets kind of a bad rap on this one as well. Unless there was evidence that the SAT scores should not have been taken at face value, it's on the player and not the college coach.


Also, weren't some of unc's football players declared permanently ineligible for similar transgressions? Is the difference there that they occurred while enrolled at the school and the $ was given by people with connections to the program?


I think that once Maggette left and turned pro, the punishment of ineligibility was moot. He had already turned pro and signed with an agent, ergo inelibible anyway.

[oldnavy]

So is it correct to say that the difference between D-Rose's case and Maggette's is that coach cal should have been able to determine that Rose's SAT scores were blatantly fake/fishy and Duke would have had a pretty difficult time determining that Maggette had receieved $1000 a few years before they knew him?

Also, weren't some of unc's football players declared permanently ineligible for similar transgressions? Is the difference there that they occurred while enrolled at the school and the $ was given by people with connections to the program?

I have to admit, I don't fully see the differences (yet) myself.

If I remember the Rose case, his SAT score took a significant leap, which would make any reasonable person question it. Also, I believe that the school was aware of the questionable SAT score and yet chose to look the other way or to at least not ask questions. SAT scores are made know to the school, whereas payoffs and gifts given to high school kids by agents or runners are not.

With Maggette, no one ever claimed that Duke was aware of what happened before they became involved with him.

The UNC players were enrolled and on the team when they received the illegal benefits and therefore the coaching staff had the responsibility to police their actions. Also, there is the claim that an athlete informed the staff of wrong doing, yet they did not follow up. So these situations are not anywhere near the same.

If you want to think Duke and K were complacent with Maggette's violations go ahead, but you would be wrong.

[bdevil94]

So is it correct to say that the difference between D-Rose's case and Maggette's is that coach cal should have been able to determine that Rose's SAT scores were blatantly fake/fishy and Duke would have had a pretty difficult time determining that Maggette had receieved $1000 a few years before they knew him?

Also, weren't some of unc's football players declared permanently ineligible for similar transgressions? Is the difference there that they occurred while enrolled at the school and the $ was given by people with connections to the program?

I have to admit, I don't fully see the differences (yet) myself.

That (bolded above) is exactly the difference in the UNC case; not sure about the details on the D-Rose case, other than the NCAA finding his scores suspicious and ruling him ineligable academically.

[sagegrouse]

If I remember the Rose case, his SAT score took a significant leap, which would make any reasonable person question it. Also, I believe that the school was aware of the questionable SAT score and yet chose to look the other way or to at least not ask questions. SAT scores are made know to the school, whereas payoffs and gifts given to high school kids by agents or runners are not.



What was even worse was that Chicagoan Rose journeyed to Detroit to take the SAT the second time. Detroit? Well, someplace where no one would know who was taking the test. Detroit? Wasn't that World Wide Wes's old stomping grounds?

sagegrouse
'One positive is that I haven't heard a word about WWW in the past year'

[oldnavy]

What was even worse was that Chicagoan Rose journeyed to Detroit to take the SAT the second time. Detroit? Well, someplace where no one would know who was taking the test. Detroit? Wasn't that World Wide Wes's old stomping grounds?

sagegrouse
'One positive is that I haven't heard a word about WWW in the past year'

Exactly, so you didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see something very suspicous about the Rose case. In fact you really did not have to be looking to see this was bogus. To see anything wrong with the Maggette case you would have had to known something and go digging.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Exactly, so you didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see something very suspicous about the Rose case. In fact you really did not have to be looking to see this was bogus. To see anything wrong with the Maggette case you would have had to known something and go digging.

Much like when Deshawn Stevenson traveled from California to North Carolina and magically improved his SAT score by 700 points. Ole Roy must not be Sherlock Holmes because he insisted that Stevenson had just studied hard. Unlike with Rose, the NCAA caught the Stevenson cheating in time, he retook the SAT, and he flunked it again.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2009/06/memphis_basketball_teaches_the.html

[BD80]

Exactly, so you didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see something very suspicous about the Rose case. ...

You'd have to be frickin' Anne Frank NOT to see it!

[Johnboy]

You'd have to be frickin' Anne Frank NOT to see it!

Anne Frank? Did you mean Helen Keller?

[ikiru36]

You'd have to be frickin' Anne Frank NOT to see it!

Perhaps you meant Helen Keller (or Blind Lemon Jefferson)?

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BD80]

Anne Frank? Did you mean Helen Keller?


Perhaps you meant Helen Keller ...

Kevin Smith reference. Humor intended. Although, frankly, Cal must have been hiding in an attic if he really did not notice that the improvement in Rose's scores was the result of his "taking" the test in Deeetroit.

[devildeac]

Kevin Smith reference. Humor intended. Although, frankly, Cal must have been hiding in an attic if he really did not notice that the improvement in Rose's scores was the result of his "taking" the test in Deeetroit.

Kinda like blind eye/s he had while pondering the 20K or 30K Kantner got for "expenses" while playing amateur ball in Turkey:rolleyes:.

[gumbomoop]

Ole Roy must not be Sherlock Holmes....

Gotta say, if Roy is Holmes, that would surely be Sherlock's greatest disguise.

[roywhite]

Gotta say, if Roy is Holmes, that would surely be Sherlock's greatest disguise.

Huckleberry Hound of the Baskervilles...errr....Basketballs?