Cards/Pitino Slammed by NCAA

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

ESPN reporting four additional years of probation for the Cards and five game suspension for Pitino for their prostitution scandal they had previously "self-imposed" penalties for.

Knowing this board, we will immediately take this and spin it towards the UNC scandal, so, have at it.

[budwom]

ESPN reporting four additional years of probation for the Cards and five game suspension for Pitino for their prostitution scandal they had previously "self-imposed" penalties for.

Knowing this board, we will immediately take this and spin it towards the UNC scandal, so, have at it.

Huh, all i'm seeing on the ESPN website is the mention of an ACC five game suspension...does the NCAA probation include any more post season bans other than last year's self imposed one???
p.s. edit: did see late mention they are ordered to "vacate" hoop records in which ineligible player played betweeen Dec 2010 and 2014......but not clear if 2013 title was to be vacated....(hello, tarheels)

[English]

ESPN reporting four additional years of probation for the Cards and five game suspension for Pitino for their prostitution scandal they had previously "self-imposed" penalties for.

Knowing this board, we will immediately take this and spin it towards the UNC scandal, so, have at it.

I may be in the minority here, but a program getting probation isn't exactly what I'd consider getting slammed. Probation is basically a warning to stay in line going forward. Pitino's 5-game suspension, which isn't a heavy burden but is still a tangible punishment, actually seems more harsh than an extended probationary period, in my view. Probation is toothless.

That said, I think the self-imposed punishment that UofL proposed/implemented seems reasonable to me, so I'm not suggesting the NCAA needs to go any further.

[SCMatt33]

Huh, all i'm seeing on the ESPN website is the mention of an ACC five game suspension...does the NCAA probation include any more post season bans other than last year's self imposed one???
p.s. edit: did see late mention they are ordered to "vacate" hoop records in which ineligible player played betweeen Dec 2010 and 2014...but not clear if 2013 title was to be vacated...(hello, tarheels)

We should know soon. Also, there's no official word yet on whether the title will be vacated with the games if it comes to that. There have been instances in the past where the NCAA has vacated tourney games, but not forced them to take down banners and such. It's been more common in recent history to do so, but there has been inconsistency with this in the past.

[Tripping William]

Here it is from the NCAA itself (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/former-louisville-operations-director-acted-unethically-head-coach-failed-monitor). There is also an embedded link to the actual decision from the NCAA. I have not read it.

Money quote from the press release:


Penalties prescribed by the panel include four years of probation for the university; a suspension from the first five Atlantic Coast Conference games of the 2017-18 season for the head coach; a 10-year show-cause order for the former operations director; a one-year show-cause order for a former program assistant; a vacation of basketball records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible from December 2010 and July 2014; men’s basketball scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions; a fine of $5,000, plus the university must return money received through conference revenue sharing for its appearances in the 2012 to 2015 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championships. The panel also accepted the university’s self-imposed 2015-16 postseason ban.

[Truth&Justise]

The scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, and fines will hurt some in the long term. But interesting that there's relatively little--just the Pitino five-game ACC ban--that will impact the team this year when they are serious contenders.

[Truth&Justise]

Also, it's not clear yet whether the 2013 title will be impacted:


A vacation of basketball records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible from December 2010 and July 2014. The university will provide a written report containing the games impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 45 days of the public decision release.

So we'll have to wait and see if any 2013 tournament games are included in that list.

[budwom]

Here it is from the NCAA itself (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/former-louisville-operations-director-acted-unethically-head-coach-failed-monitor). There is also an embedded link to the actual decision from the NCAA. I have not read it.

Money quote from the press release:

Money quote is still pretty vague: no mention of how many scholarships involved, nor the championship issue...a loss or only one or two scholarships per year is a relative slap on the wrist.

[Truth&Justise]

Money quote is still pretty vague: no mention of how many scholarships involved, nor the championship issue...a loss or only one or two scholarships per year is a relative slap on the wrist.

Here (http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/NCAA-set-to-release-infractions-report-on-U-of-L-basketball-428638223.html) are some more details:




• Public reprimand and censure for the university.

• Four years of probation from June 15, 2017, through June 14, 2021.

• A suspension from the first five ACC games of the 2017-18 season for the head coach. During the suspension, the head coach may not be present in the arena where the games are played and have no contact with the student-athletes or members of his coaching staff. The head coach also may not participate in any activities including, but not limited to, team travel, practice, video study and team meetings.

• A 10-year show-cause period for the former operations director from June 15, 2017, through June 14, 2027. During that period, any NCAA member school employing the former coach must restrict him from holding any athletically related duties and from having any contact with prospects and their families.

• A one-year show-cause order for the former program assistant from June 15, 2017, through June 14, 2018. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him can schedule an appearance before a panel of the COI to determine whether he should be subject to show-cause provisions.

• A vacation of basketball records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible from December 2010 and July 2014. The university will provide a written report containing the games impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 45 days of the public decision release.

• A reduction in men's basketball scholarships by two during the 2016-17 year (self-imposed by the university). Additionally, the university must reduce men's basketball scholarships by four over the probation period. The university may take the reductions during any year of that period.

• A prohibition of men's basketball coaching travel during the April 2016 recruiting period, which resulted in a reduction of men's basketball recruiting opportunities by 30 (self-imposed by the university).

• A reduction of recruiting travel during the July 2016 recruiting period by six days (self-imposed by the university).

• A reduction in the number of men's basketball official visits to a total of 10 during the 2015-16 year. Additionally, the university will have no more than a total of 16 visits during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 years (self-imposed by the university).

• During the probation period, men's basketball prospects on unofficial visits may not stay overnight in any campus dorms or school-owned property.

• A disassociation of the former operations director (self-imposed by the university). The public decision describes the details of his disassociation.

• A $5,000 fine (self-imposed by the university). The university must also return to the NCAA the money received through conference revenue sharing for its appearances in the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championships. Future revenue distributions that are scheduled to be provided to the university from those tournaments also must be withheld by the conference and forfeited to the NCAA.

• A postseason ban for the men's basketball team for the 2015-16 season (self-imposed by the university).

[DukeTrinity11]

UNCheat gets to skate by with its 2005 and 2009 championship banners while UL might get its 2013 banner brought down...makes me furious :mad:

[BD80]

I view this as a good sign: it is always wise to loosen up with a practice swing or two before you swing really hard to hammer one.

[sammy3469]

UNCheat gets to skate by with its 2005 and 2009 championship banners while UL might get its 2013 banner brought down...makes me furious :mad:

This decision is bad for UNC (and is probably really bad). The COI basically bats down the argument that extra benefits that have minimal dollar value aren't meaningful and lays out that if the benefits aren't spelled out in the NCAA Manual they aren't allowed. In addition, the COI gets a tad sanctimonious about "threatening the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model".

[rsvman]

How would it be possible to vacate games but retain the title? I mean in the instance where the vacated games were part of the tournament? In what universe would that make sense?

[Indoor66]

In what universe would that make sense?

A universe operated by those lying bastards?

[devildeac]

Suggestions to add to ol roy's frequently called numbers:

1. https://www.yellowpages.com/chapel-hill-nc/massage-therapists

2. http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=1670656

Hopefully starting reeaal soon...

:rolleyes:

[Eternal Outlaw]

L'Ville press conference says they will appeal, they threw out numbers of 108 regular season games and 15 post season games are in jeopardy.

[CameronBlue]

How would it be possible to vacate games but retain the title? I mean in the instance where the vacated games were part of the tournament? In what universe would that make sense?

Hopefully the universe where the NCAA is laying the groundwork for some banner-snatching from our "friends*" up the road. So far I realize I'm probably the only denizen of said universe.**

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I view this as a good sign: it is always wise to loosen up with a practice swing or two before you swing really hard to hammer one.
Yeah, hopefully this is just a slow swing in the on-deck circle with a donut on the bat.

[devildeac]

Yeah, hopefully this is just a slow swing in the on-deck circle with a donut on the bat.

Or, this is the COI's "mulligan" and they get their real chance some time this summer/fall...

[swood1000]

There seems to be an inconsistency here. At one point in the Public Infractions Decision (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017INF_LouisvillePublicInfractionsDecisionF_20170 615.pdf) they said:


Further, if any of the student-athletes competed in the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championships at any time they were ineligible, the institution's participation in the championships shall be vacated.

This seems to leave the question open as to whether any student-athletes competed. However, later, when describing the financial penalties, they said:


Therefore, consistent with former Bylaw 19.5.2-(i) and Bylaw 31.2.2.4, the IAC's report in Purdue University (2000), IAC Report No. 306 in University of Memphis (2010) and IAC Report No. 414 in Syracuse University (2015), the institution shall return to the NCAA all of the monies it has received to date through conference revenue sharing for its appearances in the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournaments.

Bylaw 31.2.2.4 covers the situation in which an ineligible student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship.
 
31.2.2.4 Institutional Penalty for Ineligible Participation. When an ineligible student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship and the student-athlete or the institution knew or had reason to know of the ineligibility, the NCAA Committee on Infractions may assess a financial penalty.

So here in the financial penalty section they are announcing that ineligible student-athlete(s) did participate in the 2012-2015 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournaments, so Louisville must return all revenue from those tournaments. Is there any other way to read this? Their wins in those tournaments will have to be vacated, right?

[Edouble]

$5,000? Will the university be able to absorb this kind of hit?

[swood1000]

$5,000? Will the university be able to absorb this kind of hit?

They also lose their NCAA Championship revenue for four years. See the revenues earned by each team for its conference in 2017 (http://herosports.com/ncaa-tournament/how-much-money-ncaa-tournament-earned-conference-2017-basketball-fund-a7a7).

[swood1000]

It's interesting, though, that while an institution cannot benefit financially from playing in the NCAA tournament with ineligible athletes, apparently the other institutions in its conference can benefit financially from that participation with ineligible athletes. Only the institution's share of the conference revenue sharing is forfeited.

[rasputin]

It's interesting, though, that while an institution cannot benefit financially from playing in the NCAA tournament with ineligible athletes, apparently the other institutions in its conference can benefit financially from that participation with ineligible athletes. Only the institution's share of the conference revenue sharing is forfeited.

Well, it wouldn't make sense to punish all the other schools in the league for the misdeeds of one team.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I may be in the minority here, but a program getting probation isn't exactly what I'd consider getting slammed. Probation is basically a warning to stay in line going forward. Pitino's 5-game suspension, which isn't a heavy burden but is still a tangible punishment, actually seems more harsh than an extended probationary period, in my view. Probation is toothless.

That said, I think the self-imposed punishment that UofL proposed/implemented seems reasonable to me, so I'm not suggesting the NCAA needs to go any further.

Well, "slammed" can certainly be in quotes if you like. I suppose I wanted a dramatic statement of the fact, noting that the NCAA settled this in (relatively) quick fashion.

[swood1000]

Well, it wouldn't make sense to punish all the other schools in the league for the misdeeds of one team.

No fruit of the poisonous tree rule here. It might be asked why the conference should be able to benefit from the misdeeds of one of its members, instead of allocating that revenue to the other conferences. If the wrongdoing team had not participated in the tournament, as it should not have, there would have been no revenue to go to the conference. It might result in more diligent oversight by the conferences.

[Indoor66]

No fruit of the poisonous tree rule here. It might be asked why the conference should be able to benefit from the misdeeds of one of its members, instead of allocating that revenue to the other conferences. If the wrongdoing team had not participated in the tournament, as it should not have, there would have been no revenue to go to the conference. It might result in more diligent oversight by the conferences.

I find your argument ridiculous. I this is a voluntary organization punishing a member for an infraction. Part of that punishment is that it will not receive financial benefit from that infraction. There is no relationship to the conference or its members. This is not Anti-Trust law and the Conference is not made up of a conference and subsidiaries.

[SCMatt33]

No fruit of the poisonous tree rule here. It might be asked why the conference should be able to benefit from the misdeeds of one of its members, instead of allocating that revenue to the other conferences. If the wrongdoing team had not participated in the tournament, as it should not have, there would have been no revenue to go to the conference. It might result in more diligent oversight by the conferences.

Yeah, but you can take that down the rabbit hole if you choose. If the offending team had not played any games that season, it's possible that a different team from he conference would have made the tourney in their place. There's no way to know what really would have happened, this is why teams don't get to vacate losses they had against offending teams

[duke043]

Can someone help me understand why player's are ineligible?

I understand penalties to the school, but not ineligibility of athletes.

It seems immoral, and its illegal to use a prostitute, but does that make a player ineligible?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Can someone help me understand why player's are ineligible?

I understand penalties to the school, but not ineligibility of athletes.

It seems immoral, and its illegal to use a prostitute, but does that make a player ineligible?

Perhaps because it was provided by the school? (As best I understand)

[swood1000]

Can someone help me understand why player's are ineligible?

I understand penalties to the school, but not ineligibility of athletes.

It seems immoral, and its illegal to use a prostitute, but does that make a player ineligible?
They received extra benefits.
 
16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports.

[Indoor66]

They received extra benefits.
 
16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports.

And we all know that all extra benefits are not equal....😊🤗😎

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

They received extra benefits.
 
16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports.

Right. Typically we would associate the concept of extra benefits with things like free rental cars, paid parking tickets, free designer mouthpieces, or, worse, free money. Things like that. We're not at all used to speaking of the illegal services of prostitutes as extra benefits. But they indeed are extra benefits.

[swood1000]

If the offending team had not played any games that season, it's possible that a different team from he conference would have made the tourney in their place.

That's true. On the other hand the opposite rule would increase the incentive for the other teams in the league to police themselves more diligently. Also, if the league would have received $8,000,000 in revenue but for the wrongdoing of one team, then maybe that team should make it up to the others.

[devildeac]

Right. Typically we would associate the concept of extra benefits with things like free rental cars, paid parking tickets, free designer mouthpieces, or, worse, free money. Things like that. We're not at all used to speaking of the illegal services of prostitutes as extra benefits. But they indeed are extra benefits.

I see what you did there...

Alas, as someone stated after this scandal broke, if only Loovill had made those benefits available to the general student population as another nearby gang of vermin did with certain other benefits...

And yes, I guess I did insult other types/species of vermin with my comparison. :rolleyes:

[UrinalCake]

This decision is bad for UNC (and is probably really bad). The COI basically bats down the argument that extra benefits that have minimal dollar value aren't meaningful and lays out that if the benefits aren't spelled out in the NCAA Manual they aren't allowed. In addition, the COI gets a tad sanctimonious about "threatening the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model".



In addition, it's bad news because Pitino has been adamant all along that he knew nothing about these "extra-curricular" activities, and the NCAA apparently has accepted that statement. But IT DOESN'T MATTER, the infractions still happened and thus they will be punished. Which has to strike fear into the hearts of UNC-CHeat fans who ever since the release of the Wainstein Report have been clinging to this notion that since Roy didn't know, the basketball program can't be punished.

Of course, their argument is now that non-athletes were allowed into the fake classes, therefore there is no impermissible benefit. If only Louisville had been smart enough to provide hookers to a few non-athletes, they would be fine (if you buy UNC's argument).

If Louisville's 2013 title banner actually comes down, UNC should be very afraid, because up until now they could feel assured that the NCAA has never done that in basketball. The closest they've come was Memphis's runner-up finish during Derrick Rose's year. I like BD80's analogy that the NCAA could be taking a practice swing (and allowing the public to get used to the idea of taking down a banner) in preparation to hammer the CHeats. Fair or not, I do believe the NCAA bends to public pressure/perception when it comes to handing out punishments.

[swood1000]

I find your argument ridiculous. I this is a voluntary organization punishing a member for an infraction. Part of that punishment is that it will not receive financial benefit from that infraction. There is no relationship to the conference or its members. This is not Anti-Trust law and the Conference is not made up of a conference and subsidiaries.

Well, it's not ridiculous to say that nobody should benefit, directly or indirectly, from an illegal act. Nor is it ridiculous to say that criminals should pay for the consequences of their actions.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If only Louisville had offered strippers and hookers to ALL students...

[swood1000]

In addition, it's bad news because Pitino has been adamant all along that he knew nothing about these "extra-curricular" activities, and the NCAA apparently has accepted that statement. But IT DOESN'T MATTER, the infractions still happened and thus they will be punished. Which has to strike fear into the hearts of UNC-CHeat fans who ever since the release of the Wainstein Report have been clinging to this notion that since Roy didn't know, the basketball program can't be punished.
 
11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. It shall be the responsibility of an institution’s head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.

As they said in the Syracuse decision,


Within that responsibility rested the presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators. That presumption is rebuttable. Here, the head basketball coach failed to rebut the presumption.

So Boeheim and Pitino each went down because someone who answered to him was caught red-handed and the coach was not able to rebut the presumption. In the case of Roy Williams, none of his subordinates was even charged (though Wayne Walden should have been). So Roy is going to escape that particular trap.

[Indoor66]

Well, it's not ridiculous to say that nobody should benefit, directly or indirectly, from an illegal act. Nor is it ridiculous to say that criminals should pay for the consequences of their actions.

That was not what you were saying in the post I was responding to. Please don't be intellectually dishonest.

[Tom B.]

If only Louisville had offered strippers and hookers to ALL students...

And we have a winner.

[swood1000]

That was not what you were saying in the post I was responding to. Please don't be intellectually dishonest.

Here's the quote that you were responding to:


No fruit of the poisonous tree rule here. It might be asked why the conference should be able to benefit from the misdeeds of one of its members, instead of allocating that revenue to the other conferences. If the wrongdoing team had not participated in the tournament, as it should not have, there would have been no revenue to go to the conference. It might result in more diligent oversight by the conferences.

Please explain the difference in meaning between
 
"It might be asked why the conference should be able to benefit from the misdeeds of one of its members, instead of allocating that revenue to the other conferences. If the wrongdoing team had not participated in the tournament, as it should not have, there would have been no revenue to go to the conference."

and
 
"Well, it's not ridiculous to say that nobody should benefit, directly or indirectly, from an illegal act."

Where is the intellectual dishonesty?

[swood1000]

If only Louisville had offered strippers and hookers to ALL students...

Or, to the extent that these extra benefits went primarily to visiting prospects, they would have to provide them to the high school students visiting campus with their parents. Since two coaches accompanying the prospects also participated, perhaps some of the parents would have to be let into the action.

[martydoesntfoul]

And this could turn out in the Cheats' favor pending results of the appeal, which is being led by the former NCAA enforcement director. Ugh.

[Devil549]

UNC has not even self sanctioned like 99% of schools do when hit with violations. I just don't see how the NCAA will not hit UNC with at least 1 year probation which includes recruiting restrictions and no post season play.

They should also hit Roy with at least 5 games suspension for not knowing that his Academic Advisor allowed student athletes to take no show classes and knew they were no show classes.

Finally before the NCAA rules you would think our BOG of the UNC system would sanction (right NC State fans) but no cannot sanction the flagship university of the unc system.

The Carolina Way.....what a joke!!!!!

[dukelifer]

UNC has not even self sanctioned like 99% of schools do when hit with violations. I just don't see how the NCAA will not hit UNC with at least 1 year probation which includes recruiting restrictions and no post season play.

They should also hit Roy with at least 5 games suspension for not knowing that his Academic Advisor allowed student athletes to take no show classes and knew they were no show classes.

Finally before the NCAA rules you would think our BOG of the UNC system would sanction (right NC State fans) but no cannot sanction the flagship university of the unc system.

The Carolina Way....what a joke!!!!!
Or they rule that Villanova's shot was after the buzzer- give Villanova a technical foul for celebration- fly Marcus Paige in to shoot free throws - but recognizing he has forgone his eligibility - award him the two free throws based on his season average- and declare UNC 2015-2016 National champions. At this point I think anything is possible.

[wsb3]

http://www.scout.com/college/louisville/story/1785186-louisville-will-appeal-ncaa-penalties?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-basketball

[Tom B.]

http://www.scout.com/college/louisville/story/1785186-louisville-will-appeal-ncaa-penalties?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-basketball

Is it just me, or does this part of the Louisville statement read like it's saying, "Yeah, we screwed up -- but dammit, we're not as bad as UNC!"


In contrast, UofL did cooperate. We wanted the NCAA Enforcement Staff to uncover what happened. We have been open and transparent throughout this process.

The NCAA knew how seriously the university treated this matter from the beginning. Once we had the facts and recognized what took place, we did the right thing by taking responsibility and imposing severe penalties on ourselves.

[Blue KevIL]

They also lose their NCAA Championship revenue for four years. See the revenues earned by each team for its conference in 2017 (http://herosports.com/ncaa-tournament/how-much-money-ncaa-tournament-earned-conference-2017-basketball-fund-a7a7).

Since Louisville would have to return the revenue to the NCAA, would the NCAA return the money I spent on tickets to the tournament games that would be vacated?

Just wondering... Yeah right.

I'll gladly donate my portion to the NCAA Enforcement Division.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Louisville should have to vacate the 1986 championship, too.

[BigWayne]

Is it just me, or does this part of the Louisville statement read like it's saying, "Yeah, we screwed up -- but dammit, we're not as bad as UNC!"

More specifically, "We cooperated instead of dragging things out like UNC. If you are going to penalize us like this, you would have to burn Chapel Hill to the ground and we know you won't go that far."

[OldPhiKap]

When Louisville rightly looks down on you for your lack of morals and honor, well -- you're living The Carolina Way.

[BD80]

... If only Louisville had been smart enough to provide hookers to a few non-athletes, they would be fine (if you buy UNC's argument)....


If only Louisville had offered strippers and hookers to ALL students...

Wouldn't it be sufficient (under unc's argument) for the strippers and hookers to be AVAILABLE to all students?

Even if the strippers and hookers weren't listed in the course guide, as long as some non-student athletes also had the strippers and hookers - they wouldn't comprise impermissible benefits?

[JasonEvans]

So, here is the deal with the 2013 banner...

The NCAA has put the ball in Louisville's court, telling the school that it must show that it did not use ineligible players in the 2013 NCAA title run. I think we all know that Ville will not be able to show that, so the 2013 banner is coming down, they just haven't announced it yet. The NCAA ruling today makes it clear with this graph:


A vacation of basketball records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible from December 2010 and July 2014. The university will provide a written report containing the games impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 45 days of the public decision release.

So, in the next 45 days Lou will tell the NCAA which games contained an ineligible player. If any of those games were in the tourney, the banner is coming down... and that is something that has never happened before, according to Reid Forgrave at CBS Sports. (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/count-on-it-ncaa-is-taking-down-louisvilles-2013-title-banner-is-unc-next/) And it does not take Forgrave long to connect the dots to a certain other banner in danger:


Don't get me wrong: It's a long time between now and when the banner gets taken down. As is often the case with NCAA investigations, this will continue to be a verrrrrry deliberative process. Louisville immediately said it will appeal. Teams of lawyers will get involved. Fan bases will be up in arms. This is the middle of the story, not the end. But you better believe that other schools -- particularly North Carolina, whose 2005 national title feels like it's hanging in the balance a whole lot more today than it was yesterday -- were stunned by the NCAA's punishment. I don't mean to throw the North Carolina scandal into this as an aside. What happened at North Carolina with paper classes in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies, where many student-athletes were fraudulently enrolled in bogus classes, is a completely different situation than what happened at Louisville. And while the events at Louisville are more sensational -- strippers! paying for sex! doing so with teenage recruits! -- North Carolina's hits more at the heart of what the NCAA stands for, the marriage of academics and athletics. If you're UNC, you're not feeling any schadenfreude about what happened to your ACC opponent. You just started feeling a bit more uncomfortable.

An earthquake shook through college sports Thursday morning. And you better believe everyone was paying attention. Even the schools that have national championship banners hanging in their rafters. Because starting today, even national titles aren't immune from the heaviest of penalties.

-Jason "now that it has been done once, taking a couple of Carolina banners away just became muuuuch easier" Evans

[devildeac]

I can see the UofL using the Bubba defense:

"Revealing what seems to be North Carolina's defense in the case, Cunningham, err, Pitino told CBS Sports, "Is this prostitution? Yes, it is by a normal person's standards. But by the NCAA definition [it is not]."

Or something like that. :o:rolleyes:

[devildeac]

From Pat Forde:

https://sports.yahoo.com/louisville-left-ponder-whats-next-ncaa-punishment-prostitution-scandal-202121796.html

Money quote:

"And the leadership at other schools nationally should be on high alert. Especially in Chapel Hill, N.C.

They might as well start unclipping the fasteners holding North Carolina’s basketball banners aloft in the Dean Dome for the 2005 and ’09 national titles. Both of those were compromised by academic fraud, even though the school has been tenaciously rebutting the NCAA’s jurisdiction to even apply sanctions in the case."

[TampaDuke]

So, here is the deal with the 2013 banner...

The NCAA has put the ball in Louisville's court, telling the school that it must show that it did not use ineligible players in the 2013 NCAA title run. I think we all know that Ville will not be able to show that, so the 2013 banner is coming down, they just haven't announced it yet. The NCAA ruling today makes it clear with this graph:



So, in the next 45 days Lou will tell the NCAA which games contained an ineligible player. If any of those games were in the tourney, the banner is coming down...

-Jason "now that it has been done once, taking a couple of Carolina banners away just became muuuuch easier" Evans

Indeed, the committee's decision goes on to say:


Further, if any of the student-athletes competed in the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championships at any time they were ineligible, the institution's participation in the championships shall be vacated. The individual records of the ineligible student-athletes shall also be vacated. Further, the institution's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the head coach, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution which may subsequently hire the head coach shall similarly reflect the vacated wins in his career records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Head coaches with vacated wins on their records may not count the vacated wins to attain specific honors or victory "milestones" such as 100th, 200th or 500th career victories. Any public reference to these vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Any trophies or other team awards attributable to the vacated contests shall be returned to the Association.

[dudog84]

Indeed, the committee's decision goes on to say:

So individual student-athletes' (I say that with tongue firmly in cheek) records are vacated? Looks like J.J. will get his ACC scoring record back.

For those that have maintained uNC will skate, and I think many have held that view to either not jinx it or save themselves from heartbreak, I believe there is just no chance of that happening now. Perhaps the NCAA saw things getting out of control and their very existence threatened. Whatever, it seems they are handing down significant punishments (Syracuse, Louisville, and several smaller schools) lately. After all this if uNC were to be let off lightly, heads across the country would explode. uNC does not have the standing that they think they have.

I know we all feel like we are in this more deeply because they have been our main rival forever, but can you imagine how all other athletic departments must feel towards uNC? This is actually their livelihood. Yeah, they all probably try to get away with what they can, but when they know they are caught they self-impose penalties and show some contrition. uNC has done the exact opposite. I almost (ALMOST) admire their chutzpah. I believe that though they won't say so publicly, in athletic departments across the country the disdain for uNC must be immeasurable. And the NCAA COI is aware of it.

[Native]

From Pat Forde: "...the leadership at other schools nationally should be on high alert. Especially in Chapel Hill, N.C."

It's not like the NCAA is shameless enough to offer up Louisville as a heathen sacrifice to the court of public opinion to make it look like they're fair and objective when they let the Cheats walk... right? Or am I just that paranoid?

[OldPhiKap]

Hammer
meet
Ram.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

FWIW - Bilas was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the Louisville case and was, predictably enough asked about UNC again. Bilas maintains that the NCAA has no business meddling with the UNC academic issues, and while they are off-putting and distasteful, any penalties will be eventually thrown out if (when) appealed.

[nmduke2001]

FWIW - Bilas was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the Louisville case and was, predictably enough asked about UNC again. Bilas maintains that the NCAA has no business meddling with the UNC academic issues, and while they are off-putting and distasteful, any penalties will be eventually thrown out if (when) appealed.

Bilas seems convinced that if penalties come down on UNC by the NCAA, UNC will take it to court and win.

[sagegrouse]

It's not like the NCAA is shameless enough to offer up Louisville as a heathen sacrifice to the court of public opinion to make it look like they're fair and objective when they let the Cheats walk... right? Or am I just that paranoid?

You are that paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies!

[devildeac]

It's not like the NCAA is shameless enough to offer up Louisville as a heathen sacrifice to the court of public opinion to make it look like they're fair and objective when they let the Cheats walk... right? Or am I just that paranoid?

I thought similarly, using the old Cleveland State analogy.

[JasonEvans]

FWIW - Bilas was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the Louisville case and was, predictably enough asked about UNC again. Bilas maintains that the NCAA has no business meddling with the UNC academic issues, and while they are off-putting and distasteful, any penalties will be eventually thrown out if (when) appealed.

I believe this is one reason the NCAA has taken the route of impermissible benefits, not academic fraud, when it comes to the UNC case. If they can find that these classes were set up to benefit athletes and that athletes were given extra access to them that was not available to the general student body (there is ample evidence of this in the emails Wainstein uncovered) then you can hang Carolina on that and not even bother with academic fraud. Bilas is parroting UNC's defense, which the NCAA has cleverly already pivoted around.

-Jason "I'm far from the expert on this... we need swood to chime in" Evans

[jimsumner]

You are that paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies!

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

The '60s.

[CDu]

FWIW - Bilas was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the Louisville case and was, predictably enough asked about UNC again. Bilas maintains that the NCAA has no business meddling with the UNC academic issues, and while they are off-putting and distasteful, any penalties will be eventually thrown out if (when) appealed.

Actually, I don't believe Bilas was asked about UNC. He just found a way to pivot the discussion to get in a comment about how UNC shouldn't be punished by the NCAA for an academic issue. Basically, it was Bilas' typical anti-NCAA schtick:
- no way Pitino should be punished for this
- no way UNC should be punished for an academic issue (totally tangential to what Mike and Mike were discussing, but Bilas is never one to miss an opportunity to hit his talking points)

[devildeac]

Giving new meaning to the ACC:

Associated
Cheaters
Conference

Sad.

[OldPhiKap]

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

The '60s.

"Never trust anyone over 30"

-- many of us, 40 or 50 years ago.

[53n206]

If the classes were introduced to benefit athletes, whether or not other students were allowed to take the classes, this should constitute violation of NCAA rules.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Actually, I don't believe Bilas was asked about UNC. He just found a way to pivot the discussion to get in a comment about how UNC shouldn't be punished by the NCAA for an academic issue. Basically, it was Bilas' typical anti-NCAA schtick:
- no way Pitino should be punished for this
- no way UNC should be punished for an academic issue (totally tangential to what Mike and Mike were discussing, but Bilas is never one to miss an opportunity to hit his talking points)

I will give Jay this, he's consistent when it comes to NCAA bashing.

[53n206]

Right. Typically we would associate the concept of extra benefits with things like free rental cars, paid parking tickets, free designer mouthpieces, or, worse, free money. Things like that. We're not at all used to speaking of the illegal services of prostitutes as extra benefits. But they indeed are extra benefits.

How about special classes, realy, realy easy(no attendance or tests required) to keep an athlete academically elegible?

[RepoMan]

Actually, I don't believe Bilas was asked about UNC. He just found a way to pivot the discussion to get in a comment about how UNC shouldn't be punished by the NCAA for an academic issue. Basically, it was Bilas' typical anti-NCAA schtick:
- no way Pitino should be punished for this
- no way UNC should be punished for an academic issue (totally tangential to what Mike and Mike were discussing, but Bilas is never one to miss an opportunity to hit his talking points)

It isn't the substance of what Bilas says that is most troublesome. I mean he has taken a position and has a forum to make the same arguments over and over.

Personally, I don't see how you can excuse the leader of a basketball program from culpability for the misdeed of his agents (even if he did not "know" what was going on). I mean, the head coach hired those people; the head coach set the tone for what was and was not acceptable; the head coach decided what should and should not be reported to him; etc. A basketball program isn't so large that the head coach shouldn't on some level be held accountable for what is going on in his program, especially when the things that are going are repetitive and not one-off incidents of bad conduct. I haven't read everything he wrote or heard everything he said on this topic, but my sense is that Bilas disagrees (as reported by CDu above). Ok, fine.

What is most disappointing about Bilas is that he is so strident. I mean, when he talks, you get the very clear sense that he thinks he is right, about everything, and anyone who thinks otherwise is corrupt and/or a dumb a**. Either that's simply the way you have to conduct your self in the media today to avoid the ESPN-style cuts, or that dude's ego has gone off the charts.

[arnie]

It isn't the substance of what Bilas says that is most troublesome. I mean he has taken a position and has a forum to make the same arguments over and over.

Personally, I don't see how you can excuse the leader of a basketball program from culpability for the misdeed of his agents (even if he did not "know" what was going on). I mean, the head coach hired those people; the head coach set the tone for what was and was not acceptable; the head coach decided what should and should not be reported to him; etc. A basketball program isn't so large that the head coach shouldn't on some level be held accountable for what is going on in his program, especially when the things that are going are repetitive and not one-off incidents of bad conduct. I haven't read everything he wrote or heard everything he said on this topic, but my sense is that Bilas disagrees (as reported by CDu above). Ok, fine.

What is most disappointing about Bilas is that he is so strident. I mean, when he talks, you get the very clear sense that he thinks he is right, about everything, and anyone who thinks otherwise is corrupt and/or a dumb a**. Either that's simply the way you have to conduct your self in the media today to avoid the ESPN-style cuts, or that dude's ego has gone off the charts.
Strident is a very nice way to put it. I find his demeanor to be extraordinarily arrogant, dismissive and hateful. He could care less about educating student athletes and protecting Roy seems to be his agenda. I wish Duke and K could cut ties with him.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Strident is a very nice way to put it. I find his demeanor to be extraordinarily arrogant, dismissive and hateful. He could care less about educating student athletes and protecting Roy seems to be his agenda. I wish Duke and K could cut ties with him.

I don't think he is "protecting" anyone. His only agenda is to bash the NCAA. He attacks them when they are wrong, which is good. He attacks them when they are right, which is rare. And he attacks them when it is off topic, which is obnoxious.

I see no reason for Duke to "cut ties" with Jay.

[jipops]

I don't think he is "protecting" anyone. His only agenda is to bash the NCAA. He attacks them when they are wrong, which is good. He attacks them when they are right, which is rare. And he attacks them when it is off topic, which is obnoxious.

I see no reason for Duke to "cut ties" with Jay.

His singular focus on bashing the NCAA seems so hypocritical. On one hand he decries the exploitation of college athletes in big-time sports, but then doesn't feel any nefarious behavior such as UNC's that grossly exploit should even be punishable at all. He makes zero sense.

I liked this article from the courier journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2017/06/15/how-fans-love-dies-louisville-scandal-killed-cards-me/399325001/) posted on the front page:


"There are college sports fans who insist that you love a team no matter what. They'll tell you that being a real fan means choking down the bad times. Those people are wrong.

College basketball is a business, an entertainment for which we pay a lot of money, and in exchange I want zero prostitutes, a program not on the speed-dial of NCAA enforcers and a decent post offense. Apparently, that's not an option."


I can say without a doubt, even though I've now spent about 80% of my life as a fan... if Duke ever became embroiled in the sort of scandal that Louisville and the cheats have, I would have absolutely no problem or hesitation to walk away. Otherwise I'd be going against one of the main reasons I became a Duke fan in the first place.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

His singular focus on bashing the NCAA seems so hypocritical. On one hand he decries the exploitation of college athletes in big-time sports, but then doesn't feel any nefarious behavior such as UNC's that grossly exploit should even be punishable at all. He makes zero sense.

I really liked this article from the courier journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2017/06/15/how-fans-love-dies-louisville-scandal-killed-cards-me/399325001/) posted on the front page:


I can say without a doubt, even though I've now spent about 80% of my life as a fan... if Duke ever became embroiled in the sort of scandal that Louisville and the cheats have, I would have absolutely no problem or hesitation to walk away. Otherwise I'd be going against one of the main reasons I became a Duke fan in the first place.

At risk of being a Jay defender, I don't see his attitude towards the NCAA as analogous to being a fan - though I do very much appreciate your words on fandom and why you are a Duke fan.

I see Jay's antagonistic relationship with the NCAA as more like how we all view UNC. They can do no right, and anything that they do, we will find a way to skewer against them. If players go pro, we laugh as UNC being left in the lurch. If they stay, we mock them for being unable to develop talent or recruit top players.

If the NCAA came out strongly in favor of kittens, Jay would find something to hate about it.

[NSDukeFan]

From Pat Forde:

https://sports.yahoo.com/louisville-left-ponder-whats-next-ncaa-punishment-prostitution-scandal-202121796.html

Money quote:

"And the leadership at other schools nationally should be on high alert. Especially in Chapel Hill, N.C.

They might as well start unclipping the fasteners holding North Carolina’s basketball banners aloft in the Dean Dome for the 2005 and ’09 national titles. Both of those were compromised by academic fraud, even though the school has been tenaciously rebutting the NCAA’s jurisdiction to even apply sanctions in the case."

There will be a lot more spent on lawyers and PR before that happens though.

Note: none of this spending will in any way come from monies that could be helpful for students, it will come from...?

[bob blue devil]

I don't think he is "protecting" anyone. His only agenda is to bash the NCAA. He attacks them when they are wrong, which is good. He attacks them when they are right, which is rare. And he attacks them when it is off topic, which is obnoxious.

I see no reason for Duke to "cut ties" with Jay.

putting aside the idea of cutting ties, i don't follow your logic here. yes, jay has been consistent - you put it very nicely - he always attacks the ncaa. whether his consistency in the unc case is designed in part to protect roy is up for debate (a side benefit to always attacking the ncaa is that you are usually defending someone who can return the favor). but, regardless of jay's motives, being consistent is not a defense of anything in and of itself. let's say, i think $20 is the fair price for a dinner everywhere. so, if always leave a $20 after dinner and walk out before getting the bill, then i'm consistent but also a thief.

[dudog84]

His singular focus on bashing the NCAA seems so hypocritical. On one hand he decries the exploitation of college athletes in big-time sports, but then doesn't feel any nefarious behavior such as UNC's that grossly exploit should even be punishable at all. He makes zero sense.

I liked this article from the courier journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2017/06/15/how-fans-love-dies-louisville-scandal-killed-cards-me/399325001/) posted on the front page:


I can say without a doubt, even though I've now spent about 80% of my life as a fan... if Duke ever became embroiled in the sort of scandal that Louisville and the cheats have, I would have absolutely no problem or hesitation to walk away. Otherwise I'd be going against one of the main reasons I became a Duke fan in the first place.

I'm with ya. Growing up in western PA, I was a Steelers fan for a dozen years before I became a Duke fan. But when they signed a dog torturer I walked away and never looked back. Unfortunately, everyone I used to watch games with thinks I'm a nut.

[mph]

Giving new meaning to the ACC:

Associated
Cheaters
Conference

Sad.

Remember the good old days when we could mock the Situational Ethics Conference?

[jipops]

At risk of being a Jay defender, I don't see his attitude towards the NCAA as analogous to being a fan - though I do very much appreciate your words on fandom and why you are a Duke fan.

I see Jay's antagonistic relationship with the NCAA as more like how we all view UNC. They can do no right, and anything that they do, we will find a way to skewer against them. If players go pro, we laugh as UNC being left in the lurch. If they stay, we mock them for being unable to develop talent or recruit top players.

If the NCAA came out strongly in favor of kittens, Jay would find something to hate about it.

I'm not sure I view UNC quite the same as Jay views the NCAA, but there certainly are similarities. Anyone with functioning eyes, ears, and a head above sand is clear about what has gone on in Chapel Hill. I've disliked them over the years as a fan for very superficial fan-like reasons. Most all Duke fans are of course going to find something to disparage unc about, same goes the other way around...superficial stuff...that's just fandom. But I have great contempt for them for the very clear, obvious reason. The same contempt I have for schools like Baylor and now Louisville. I believe unc actually can do right, they simply won't. Jay, on the other hand, preaches a principle which somehow only applies to the NCAA but not big-time college programs. According to Jay, the NCAA should not prevent a college athlete from benefiting from his talents and revenue generation in a college setting but it is acceptable for an academic institution to either mislead or outright deny kids an education while forcing them into labor. At minimum the institution should not pay any price for that. Again, Jay makes absolutely no sense at all.

[wsb3]

or that dude's ego has gone off the charts.

Smartest man in every room he enters...

[devildeac]

From Ted Tatos on Twitter yesterday (scroll down about 4-5 tweets):

https://twitter.com/tedtatos?lang=en

"In Louisville decision, NCAA COI cites Syracuse case and notes head coach monitoring responsibilities."

"Description of Pitino relationship w/ ops director noted in COI Louisville decision remarkably similar to Roy Williams-Wayne Walden at UNC."

[devildeac]

One more:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCYAXBMVwAAllpG.jpg

[devildeac]

One of our former players, Alaa Abdelnaby, chimes in:

https://twitter.com/alaatweets?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp% 7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

"UNC! You're next...#GTHC"

LOL.

9F.

[MartyClark]

FWIW - Bilas was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the Louisville case and was, predictably enough asked about UNC again. Bilas maintains that the NCAA has no business meddling with the UNC academic issues, and while they are off-putting and distasteful, any penalties will be eventually thrown out if (when) appealed.

I heard Jay arguing with Golic this morning. I generally like Jay but don't like his crusade against the NCAA and resulting defense of programs like Carolina and Louisville. Jay's main argument seemed to be that there was "no evidence" that Pitino knew about this because he and others denied any knowledge.

I don't think Jay actually practices law and don't think he has ever tried a case. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful and has convicted many people who have steadfastly denied knowledge or involvement in illegal schemes.

I don't know the NCAA rules but, as an attorney practicing in Colorado, I love the jury instruction pertaining to credibility of witnesses. I speculate that a jury, or in this case a finder of fact, would not find Pitino's testimony credible. As I understand it, Pitino goes to dinner with the recruit and then leaves and goes to bed early. Never asks his assistants how the rest of the evening went or what transpired with the recruits.

I've coached at a minor level. I've managed people in law firms. I usually knew when something was wrong. A competent manager needs to recognize potential problems and ask the right questions.

I can't imagine this ever happening at Duke.

[Indoor66]

I heard Jay arguing with Golic this morning. I generally like Jay but don't like his crusade against the NCAA and resulting defense of programs like Carolina and Louisville. Jay's main argument seemed to be that there was "no evidence" that Pitino knew about this because he and others denied any knowledge.

I don't think Jay actually practices law and don't think he has ever tried a case. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful and has convicted many people who have steadfastly denied knowledge or involvement in illegal schemes.

I don't know the NCAA rules but, as an attorney practicing in Colorado, I love the jury instruction pertaining to credibility of witnesses. I speculate that a jury, or in this case a finder of fact, would not find Pitino's testimony credible. As I understand it, Pitino goes to dinner with the recruit and then leaves and goes to bed early. Never asks his assistants how the rest of the evening went or what transpired with the recruits.

I've coached at a minor level. I've managed people in law firms. I usually knew when something was wrong. A competent manager needs to recognize potential problems and ask the right questions.

I can't imagine this ever happening at Duke.

There is also the imputed knowledge of a principal for the actions or non actions of his agents. He knew or should have known - falls into the NCAA lexicon for Lack of Institutional Control.

The same logic convicts Roy and Dean.

[jv001]

It isn't the substance of what Bilas says that is most troublesome. I mean he has taken a position and has a forum to make the same arguments over and over.

Personally, I don't see how you can excuse the leader of a basketball program from culpability for the misdeed of his agents (even if he did not "know" what was going on). I mean, the head coach hired those people; the head coach set the tone for what was and was not acceptable; the head coach decided what should and should not be reported to him; etc. A basketball program isn't so large that the head coach shouldn't on some level be held accountable for what is going on in his program, especially when the things that are going are repetitive and not one-off incidents of bad conduct. I haven't read everything he wrote or heard everything he said on this topic, but my sense is that Bilas disagrees (as reported by CDu above). Ok, fine.

What is most disappointing about Bilas is that he is so strident. I mean, when he talks, you get the very clear sense that he thinks he is right, about everything, and anyone who thinks otherwise is corrupt and/or a dumb a**. Either that's simply the way you have to conduct your self in the media today to avoid the ESPN-style cuts, or that dude's ego has gone off the charts.

Someone very close to the Duke program once told me that Jay Bilas loves himself to the point he is arrogant. In recent years it seems that is the case. I can't put him in the same category as Dick Vitale but most of the time I mute when Jay is dishing out his nonsense. At least, Dick is a pretty nice dude. GoDuke!

[DukeandMdFan]

I don't think Jay actually practices law and don't think he has ever tried a case. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful and has convicted many people who have steadfastly denied knowledge or involvement in illegal schemes.
.

Per Wikipedia, "Bilas received his J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1992. He is currently Of Counsel to the Charlotte office of Moore & Van Allen, where he maintains a litigation practice.[9]

Bilas most notably worked on the case Lyons Partnership v. Morris Costumes, Inc., where he successfully defended the costume business against trademark and copyright claims brought by owners of the popular children's television character Barney the Dinosaur.[10]"

[Tripping William]

Per Wikipedia, "Bilas received his J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1992. He is currently Of Counsel to the Charlotte office of Moore & Van Allen, where he maintains a litigation practice.[9]

Bilas most notably worked on the case Lyons Partnership v. Morris Costumes, Inc., where he successfully defended the costume business against trademark and copyright claims brought by owners of the popular children's television character Barney the Dinosaur.[10]"

To quote Don McLean (the singer, not the former UCLA basketball player) that was "a long, long time ago."

[Olympic Fan]

Just one point about the Pitino penalty ...

For years, head coaches in basketball and football have operated under the theory of plausible deniability. They don't WANT to know what their assistants are doing. With no paper trail, as long as the assistant keeps his mouth shut (and if he doesn't, he ostrasized forever)m there is no way to connect a head coach to cheating by his staff.

Knowing that, the NCAA changed the rules a few years ago to close that loophole. A head coach is now RESPONSIBLE for anything his assistants do outside the rules -- whether the NCAA can prove direct knowledge or not.

It was that rule that led to nine-game suspensions for Larry Brown and Jim Boeheim. In both cases, the NCAA did not find evidence that either head coach was involved, but he new rule makes them responsible.

I really don't understand why Pitino and Louisville are surprised by the NCAA ruling. Everybody acknowledges that McGee (a Pitino assistant) cheated. Under current NCAA rules, that makes Pitino guilty of failure to monitor. He might or might not have known what McGee was doing -- but he should have known.

BTW: That same rule is going to nail Huckleberry Hound if the NCAA finds that the Cheats cheated.

[mgtr]

Looking at the transgressions of Syracuse and L'ville, they seem to be relatively minor compared to those of UNC, plus UNC's occurred over a much longer time and affected many more "student-athletes." Therefore, I have to conclude that UNC will be hammered far harder than the other schools. Well, I can dream, can't I?

[Nugget]

Just one point about the Pitino penalty ...

For years, head coaches in basketball and football have operated under the theory of plausible deniability. They don't WANT to know what their assistants are doing. With no paper trail, as long as the assistant keeps his mouth shut (and if he doesn't, he ostrasized forever)m there is no way to connect a head coach to cheating by his staff.

Knowing that, the NCAA changed the rules a few years ago to close that loophole. A head coach is now RESPONSIBLE for anything his assistants do outside the rules -- whether the NCAA can prove direct knowledge or not.

It was that rule that led to nine-game suspensions for Larry Brown and Jim Boeheim. In both cases, the NCAA did not find evidence that either head coach was involved, but he new rule makes them responsible.

I really don't understand why Pitino and Louisville are surprised by the NCAA ruling. Everybody acknowledges that McGee (a Pitino assistant) cheated. Under current NCAA rules, that makes Pitino guilty of failure to monitor. He might or might not have known what McGee was doing -- but he should have known.

BTW: That same rule is going to nail Huckleberry Hound if the NCAA finds that the Cheats cheated.


Correct. The NCAA, as I understand it, accepted the proposition that Pitino didn't actually know, but concluded that doesn't matter -- he's responsible anyway.

Frankly, I tend to believe that Pitino didn't actually know. What Louisville/McGee did was absurd and extremely risky. Had Pitino really known, he would have made sure they didn't do something this ridiculous. Especially given his prior involvement in a sex scandal/extortion situation.

[TampaDuke]

I really don't understand why Pitino and Louisville are surprised by the NCAA ruling. Everybody acknowledges that McGee (a Pitino assistant) cheated. Under current NCAA rules, that makes Pitino guilty of failure to monitor. He might or might not have known what McGee was doing -- but he should have known.

BTW: That same rule is going to nail Huckleberry Hound if the NCAA finds that the Cheats cheated.

Except that the NCAA actually charged Pitino, while, for some reason, it didn't charge Roy. I think swood quoted some bylaws that give the COI the authority to find violations that were not charged. I have no idea how often they invoke that authority, though.

[Steven43]

Smartest man in every room he enters...

Surely you jest. I mean..........you are being facetious, right?

[Steven43]

It's not like the NCAA is shameless enough to offer up Louisville as a heathen sacrifice to the court of public opinion to make it look like they're fair and objective when they let the Cheats walk... right? Or am I just that paranoid?

Okay, somebody please explain to me why there is the perception that UNC is an extremely influential school with the NCAA. From where did this idea come? If we are talking about The University of Texas or perhaps Ohio State University, okay, maybe I would understand. But UNC? Why would they have any kind of special status? It's not like UNC is the school one thinks of when the subject of big-time college athletics comes up. I suspect this whole 'UNC is untouchable' mantra is off base.

[OldPhiKap]

Surely you jest. I mean......you are being facetious, right?

I think he means, in Jay's own mind.

I think we need a separate thread on Jay and maybe there already is one. Every discussion of the NCAA devolves into a thread about UNCheat, which then devolves into a discussion of Jay.

[jv001]

Okay, somebody please explain to me why there is the perception that UNC is an extremely influential school with the NCAA. From where did this idea come? If we are talking about The University of Texas or perhaps Ohio State University, okay, maybe I would understand. But UNC? Why would they have any kind of special status? It's not like UNC is the school one thinks of when the subject of big-time college athletics comes up. I suspect this whole 'UNC is untouchable' mantra is off base.

I think the reason some people(not the NCAA) began thinking uncheat was a special school because of Saint Dean. You know the Carolina way. I guess Dean's reputation has taken a hit with some of those same people. Well, the ones that are not Cheat fans. The Carolina way is nothing more than win at all costs even if it means cheating. They were the masters of cheat. In my ACC basketball time line it began with McGuire and ended with Cheatin Roy. What a bunch of lying scumbags. GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Okay, somebody please explain to me why there is the perception that UNC is an extremely influential school with the NCAA. From where did this idea come? If we are talking about The University of Texas or perhaps Ohio State University, okay, maybe I would understand. But UNC? Why would they have any kind of special status? It's not like UNC is the school one thinks of when the subject of big-time college athletics comes up. I suspect this whole 'UNC is untouchable' mantra is off base.

UNC, I assume, is one of the top revenue generators in the NCAA. Almost certainly well ahead of Louisville, Syracuse, or other recent NCAA offenders. Bot a stretch to see how that might lead to less of a tough love approach by the NCAA.

Hope I am wrong!

[arnie]

UNC, I assume, is one of the top revenue generators in the NCAA. Almost certainly well ahead of Louisville, Syracuse, or other recent NCAA offenders. Bot a stretch to see how that might lead to less of a tough love approach by the NCAA.

Hope I am wrong!

Do not underestimate the influence of Mr. Swofford. Most assuredly, he stayed out of the Louisville situation and he's heavily involved lobbying for the Cheats in their "minor" tribulations.

[wsb3]

I think he means, in Jay's own mind

Correct OPK

[duke80]

Do not underestimate the influence of Mr. Swofford. Most assuredly, he stayed out of the Louisville situation and he's heavily involved lobbying for the Cheats in their "minor" tribulations.

I've never seen so much 'confidence' as I've seen out of I.C. They have swallowed the party line and already know where this thing is going to end up. If I may roughly quote, "The NCAA is way off base and trying to bend the rules and lie in order to flex their muscles and screw us. Everyone knows they are not following their own bylaws. We will take them to court, possibly even get punitive damages and our case may be the straw that breaks the NCAA's back. Check back in a year from now and this whole thing should be resolved in our favor with possibly a few minor penalties to women's BB. The NCAA is about to get a dose of their own medicine."

No one wants to be held accountable when they are caught cheating, but this is beyond that. I can't quite find a word for it. Either everyone on the Duke board does not understand the case and what really happened over there, or UNC has circled the wagons and refuses to see the facts that are staring them in the face as reported in the Wainstein report. Which is it?

Hopefully, the COI will clear this up. When they rule do they present some of the evidence as justification of their penalties? This would help to clear up the misinformation circulating, and from all appearances being put out by UNC. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I guess time will tell.

[Steven43]

I've never seen so much 'confidence' as I've seen out of I.C. They have swallowed the party line and already know where this thing is going to end up. If I may roughly quote, "The NCAA is way off base and trying to bend the rules and lie in order to flex their muscles and screw us. Everyone knows they are not following their own bylaws. We will take them to court, possibly even get punitive damages and our case may be the straw that breaks the NCAA's back. Check back in a year from now and this whole thing should be resolved in our favor with possibly a few minor penalties to women's BB. The NCAA is about to get a dose of their own medicine."

No one wants to be held accountable when they are caught cheating, but this is beyond that. I can't quite find a word for it. Either everyone on the Duke board does not understand the case and what really happened over there, or UNC has circled the wagons and refuses to see the facts that are staring them in the face as reported in the Wainstein report. Which is it?
What did you mean by 'Either everyone on the Duke board does not understand the case and what really happened over there'?

In any case, I want those UNC cheaters to go down, and go down HARD. They deserve a severe punishment, possibly on a level just above the 'death penalty' given to SMU in the 80's.

And I say this knowing that my daughter, a rising high school senior, is applying to UNC and might well end up as a student there. I don't care. I want those smug, entitled, holier-than-thou jerks to get absolutely hammered for their shameless and destructive long-term cheating.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

"The NCAA is about to get a dose of their own medicine."


...hubris much?

[YmoBeThere]

...hubris much?

Hubris is the word that came instantly to my mind.

[arnie]

I think he means, in Jay's own mind.

I think we need a separate thread on Jay and maybe there already is one. Every discussion of the NCAA devolves into a thread about UNCheat, which then devolves into a discussion of Jay.

Jay Bilas: NCAA officials ‘breaking their own rules’ to punish UNC in athletics scandal
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html :mad:

[bob blue devil]

Jay Bilas: NCAA officials ‘breaking their own rules’ to punish UNC in athletics scandal
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html :mad:

what a surprise. bilas continues to parrot unc's talking points in complete lockstep with the administration. as i've said many times, the chances that he independently came to his conclusions at the same point unc has put out the identical arguments are very close to zero. the only question is why he has chosen to be a mouthpiece for unc.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

what a surprise. bilas continues to parrot unc's talking points in complete lockstep with the administration. as i've said many times, the chances that he independently came to his conclusions at the same point unc has put out the identical arguments are very close to zero. the only question is why he has chosen to be a mouthpiece for unc.

He has chosen to say these things because UNC's opponent is the NCAA, plain and simple. In his mind, there is no greater opponent than the NCAA, and he will fight them to the death.

[TruBlu]

He has chosen to say these things because UNC's opponent is the NCAA, plain and simple. In his mind, there is no greater opponent than the NCAA, and he will fight them to the death.

Plus, the person who signs his paycheck at ESPN is a unc grad.

[arnie]

He has chosen to say these things because UNC's opponent is the NCAA, plain and simple. In his mind, there is no greater opponent than the NCAA, and he will fight them to the death.

Except that he thiinks it's fine to punish Louisville. I really don't understand why Bilas refuses to discuss the criminality of Chapel Hill High refusing to provide any educational opportunity to its student athletes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Except that he thiinks it's fine to punish Louisville. I really don't understand why Bilas refuses to discuss the criminality of Chapel Hill High refusing to provide any educational opportunity to its student athletes.

Actually, Bilas thinks the Louisville penalties went too far, considering that other impermissible benefits cases have relied heavily on the "cash value" of said benefits, whereas this case was harsher because it was "repugnant." Bilas believes that "it is disgusting" is not a good rationale for worse penalties.

As I say, you can not like Bilas, but he does love to trash the NCAA.

[bob blue devil]

As I say, you can not like Bilas, but he does love to trash the NCAA.

yep. how cowardly to pick on the blob that has almost nobody deeply motivated to stand up for them, rather than any of the underlying members of that blob who have passionate stakeholders.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

yep. how cowardly to pick on the blob that has almost nobody deeply motivated to stand up for them, rather than any of the underlying members of that blob who have passionate stakeholders.

Well, and that's sort of the weird thing... the NCAA is such an odd institution. It exists FOR the individual colleges and universities, as a system of checks and balances. But at the end of the day, they work for the members.

I said several years ago (that's depressing in and of itself) that this UNC case is a watershed moment for the NCAA. At this point, if they don't hammer UNC with unprecedented penalties, they will effectively neuter themselves and pull the cover back on their obsolescence. If drop the death penalty on UNC, they run the risk of overplaying their hand, and making member institutions question whether they truly want/need the NCAA as an oversight organization, when they could simply continue to grow power conferences and negotiate their own TV rights.

I disagree with Bilas about the inevitability of UNC getting penalties thrown out on appeal, but everything I have seen thus far does seem to suggest they will continue to fight until their last breath.

[Indoor66]

Well, and that's sort of the weird thing... the NCAA is such an odd institution. It exists FOR the individual colleges and universities, as a system of checks and balances. But at the end of the day, they work for the members.

I said several years ago (that's depressing in and of itself) that this UNC case is a watershed moment for the NCAA. At this point, if they don't hammer UNC with unprecedented penalties, they will effectively neuter themselves and pull the cover back on their obsolescence. If drop the death penalty on UNC, they run the risk of overplaying their hand, and making member institutions question whether they truly want/need the NCAA as an oversight organization, when they could simply continue to grow power conferences and negotiate their own TV rights.

I disagree with Bilas about the inevitability of UNC getting penalties thrown out on appeal, but everything I have seen thus far does seem to suggest they will continue to fight until their last breath.

I disagree with your premise that the death penalty would be over playing their hand by the NCAA. That penalty, supported by facts and evidence, would be well received by the basketball community. I still believe that most fans and schools are people and organizations of integrity. I hope that I am not fooling myself.

[Olympic Fan]

There is NO chance that UNC will get the death penalty.

There is almost no chance that the death penalty will ever be levied again -- to anybody.

I happen to be one of those who think UNC will be hammered ... but it won't be the death penalty.

And, yes, UNC will appeal all the way, but unless they can get the case before a UNC judge -- like Orange County Judge Allen Baddour, who has helped them several times -- their chances of winning are infinitesimal.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I disagree with your premise that the death penalty would be over playing their hand by the NCAA. That penalty, supported by facts and evidence, would be well received by the basketball community. I still believe that most fans and schools are people and organizations of integrity. I hope that I am not fooling myself.

Well, there's likely a divide between "most fans and school" and "power conference members with millions of dollars on the line."

Hence, why I could see schools deciding that the NCAA works great for D2 swimming or what have you, but D1 basketball/football not so much.

Honestly, something like this would greatly diminish my interest in college sports. But, I think it would be a reflection of the "minor league" reality that revenue college sports has achieved.

[JasonEvans]

UNC, I assume, is one of the top revenue generators in the NCAA. Almost certainly well ahead of Louisville, Syracuse, or other recent NCAA offenders. Bot a stretch to see how that might lead to less of a tough love approach by the NCAA.

Hope I am wrong!

Yup, you are wrong ;)

The latest revenue figures I could find (http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/) were for 2014-15, which is pretty current. UNC had athletic revenues of $89.1 million, placing them 32nd out of all schools that reported revenues. Louisville was #22 with $104 mil in revenue. The top revenue generators are all the football powerhouses because a successful football program is a massive revenue stream. The highest ranking for any ACC school is Florida State at #13 with $120 mil in revenue.

So, the notion that UNC has some special status with the NCAA because it is some "big boy" university while Louisville is not just does not jive with the facts here.

It is worth noting that most of the large D1 private universities, who do not have to declare revenue figures, do not release them. So you will not find Duke or Syracuse in the rankings I linked above. That said, a little digging seems to indicate that Duke has athletic department revenues of $78 mil while Syracuse has revenues of $73 mil -- the same general range as fellow ACC schools Ga Tech ($77 mil) and NC State ($76 mil).

-Jason "in recent years, the NCAA slammed USC (#84 mil), Ohio State (#3, $167 mil), and Penn St (#10, $125 mil)... if they can be hurt, so can UNC" Evans

[sagegrouse]

There is NO chance that UNC will get the death penalty.

There is almost no chance that the death penalty will ever be levied again -- to anybody.

I happen to be one of those who think UNC will be hammered ... but it won't be the death penalty.

And, yes, UNC will appeal all the way, but unless they can get the case before a UNC judge -- like Orange County Judge Allen Baddour, who has helped them several times -- their chances of winning are infinitesimal.
Agree. Also, I believe any action w'd be a federal case, not one decided in state court.

[swood1000]

Moved

[OldPhiKap]

-Jason "in recent years, the NCAA slammed USC (#84 mil), Ohio State (#3, $167 mil), and Penn St (#10, $125 mil)... if they can be hurt, so can UNC" Evans

As well as Notre Dame. Although they are private and don't report, I cannot imagine that they are not a top 15 revenue team. As Jason notes, although most of us are basketball-centric in our views, football is where the real money is. Hence, expansion of the leagues.

UNC is not too big to fail, or too important to punish. They are, however, willing to push these issues to the limits when most schools would just self-report and take their medicine to a large degree.

Pride goeth before the fall. Carolina, goeth to Hell.

[BD80]

As well as Notre Dame. Although they are private and don't report, I cannot imagine that they are not a top 15 revenue team. As Jason notes, although most of us are basketball-centric in our views, football is where the real money is. Hence, expansion of the leagues.

UNC is not too big to fail, or too important to punish. They are, however, willing to push these issues to the limits when most schools would just self-report and take their medicine to a large degree.

Pride goeth before the fall. Carolina, goeth to Hell.

If they beith in hell, to where dost they fall?

[OldPhiKap]

If they beith in hell, to where dost they fall?

The lowest ring, my friend. To the lowest ring.

[BD80]

The lowest ring, my friend. To the lowest ring.

Or lower ...

[swood1000]

The lowest ring, my friend. To the lowest ring.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7503&stc=1

[devildeac]

The lowest ring, my friend. To the lowest ring.


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7503&stc=1

Y'all talkin' about this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLYB9pvww2M

:D

[Tom B.]

There is NO chance that UNC will get the death penalty.

There is almost no chance that the death penalty will ever be levied again -- to anybody.

I've been wondering about this -- not specifically with reference to UNC (I agree they likely won't get the death penalty), but in general.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom that after the NCAA hit SMU football with the death penalty in 1987 and SMU became irrelevant for a generation, everyone took a step back and said, "Whoa..." and decided the death penalty was just too big an axe to swing, and therefore likely won't ever be swung again.

I'm not so sure. That is, I don't disagree that this conventional wisdom exists, or that it might prevent the NCAA from ever using the death penalty again.

I'm just not sure about the validity of the conventional wisdom.

It wasn't just the death penalty that killed SMU football. It was the death penalty, plus at least two other things.

First, after the NCAA lowered the hammer, SMU did a major housecleaning from top to bottom. New president, new trustees, new athletic director and staff, new everything. And they de-emphasized football for a long time. Now, given the degree of corruption at SMU, these were probably necessary and appropriate steps. But it was those steps, as much as anything else, that handicapped SMU football and made it an also-ran (at best) for so long.

With the restrictions that SMU's new management put on the football program, there was just no way they could field a competitive team. And I'm not just talking about restrictions that said, "Hey, no more slush funds to pay players." The new brass at SMU imposed tight academic requirements, cut the program's budget, and took a number of other steps that really hampered SMU's ability to rebuild a competitive program. There were just a lot of things that SMU just couldn't do, even though they would've been completely within the rules, to try and keep up with other programs.

The other thing that really hurt SMU was the demise of the Southwest Conference. In 1990, a year after SMU resumed football, Arkansas left to join the SEC, touching off a domino effect of realignment as the major conferences began looking to negotiate their own TV deals and expand their footprints to increase the value of their potential deals. (The same year the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina, Penn State joined the Big Ten.)

Reduced to a footprint of a single state, the SWC was ripe for cannibalization. The death blow came a few years later when its two biggest properties, Texas and Texas A&M, left (along with Baylor and Texas Tech) for the Big Eight, which became the Big 12. The remaining SWC members (including SMU) were left without a major conference home, and spun off one by one to mid-major leagues like the WAC and Conference USA. Without a major conference to carry it, any hope SMU had of returning to the upper echelon of college football programs was effectively dead.

So yes, the death penalty unquestionably hurt SMU. But it wasn't just the death penalty that truly killed SMU for a generation. It was a combination of the death penalty and other events and circumstances -- some of which SMU imposed on itself, but some of which were beyond its control.

[swood1000]

There is NO chance that UNC will get the death penalty.

There is almost no chance that the death penalty will ever be levied again -- to anybody.

I happen to be one of those who think UNC will be hammered ... but it won't be the death penalty.

And, yes, UNC will appeal all the way, but unless they can get the case before a UNC judge -- like Orange County Judge Allen Baddour, who has helped them several times -- their chances of winning are infinitesimal.

I agree that there's no chance that UNC will get the death penalty. For one thing, it's only applicable if a second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in a prior case. The effective date of the penalties in the prior public infractions decision (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=102358) was March 12, 2012. However, the allegations in NOA-3 are for activities that only went to 2010-11 (except for those related to Crowder's and Nyang'oro's refusal to participate). So this is for things that happened before the starting date of the previous penalty and so doesn’t qualify under the repeat violator rule.


The repeat-violator legislation (http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-penalties) (“death penalty”) is applicable to an institution if, within a five-year period, the following conditions exist:
 
• Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and

• The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. The second major case does not have to be in the same sport as the previous case to affect the second sport.

• Penalties for repeat violators of legislation, subject to exemptions authorized by the committee on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any of the following:


• The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sport seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement (directly or indirectly) in any coaching activities at the institution during that period
• The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and recruiting activities in the sport involved in the latest major violation in question for a two-year period.
• The requirement that all institutional staff member serving on the NCAA Board of Directors; Leadership, Legislative, Presidents or Management Councils; Executive Committee or other Association governance bodies resign their positions. All institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for a period of four years and
• The requirement that the institution relinquish its Association voting privileges for a four-year period.