Josh Selby out 9 games

[DukeGirl4ever]

Not sure if this was posted or not, so feel free to delete or move.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5827821

What do you guys think? Too much? Not enough?

I have a hard time keeping up with this stuff.

[dchen09]

Hard to say, don't know any of the facts. Even less so than the Kanter case so really can't judge.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Hard to say, don't know any of the facts. Even less so than the Kanter case so really can't judge.

My question is...if he doesn't hand over the $6,000 to charity (as stated in the link) before his 9 game suspension is up, is it extended until he does so?

There are too many gray areas here - I like black and white (and blue).

[Bluedog]

Not sure if this was posted or not, so feel free to delete or move.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5827821

What do you guys think? Too much? Not enough?

I have a hard time keeping up with this stuff.

Sounds fair from what little I know. A long-time family friend who is also the manager of Carmelo Anthony gave Selby and his family some clothes, transportation, food, and lodging, but he's not related to Kansas in any way. You can't accept $5,000+ in gifts, though, so it's clearly against the rules, but I think paying it back to a charity of his choice is fine...by the way, where is a college kid getting $5k? I guess school is free for him at least. I don't think it was too huge of a violation to warrant much more than 9 games. Kanter at least was paid for playing basketball, so his amateurism was in doubt. Selby was just given some free stuff by a family friend (who is not affiliated with Kansas and didn't convince him to go there as far as we can tell). Sounds like a reasonable suspension to me.

[SCMatt33]

This sounds like a similar situation to Wall last year, where his relationship with Brian Clifton caused some trouble. Wall was only suspended 2 games, but also only had a few hundred dollars in benefits pinned to him, so this sounds reasonable.

[DevilHorns]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...outweighs-risk

Gary Parrish has a decent point. The reward clearly outweighs the risk for Selby and others in his financial position that are edging on taking benefits.

I think the NCAA needs to be a little tougher. How about 9 games now and ineligible for any post-season play if the team reaches a tournament?

This 'punishment' by the NCAA will not hinder future prospects from taking benefits. That's the bottom line.

[4decadedukie]

I do not know enough concerning Selby' specific situation to comment on the justness of his sanction. However, I would offer one recommendation to the NCAA, that might make punishments of this sort more meaningful and a greater preventative. Have the entire suspension served IN CONFERENCE, where the real rivalries exist and where (January thorough early-March) the "heart of the season" largely determines NCAA Tournament seedings.

[Lid]

I'm just glad to realize this thread wasn't about Shay Selby.

[Jderf]

I do not know enough concerning Selby' specific situation to comment on the justness of his sanction. However, I would offer one recommendation to the NCAA, that might make punishments of this sort more meaningful and a greater preventative. Have the entire suspension served IN CONFERENCE, where the real rivalries exist and where (January thorough early-March) the "heart of the season" largely determines NCAA Tournament seedings.

Agreed. Just as with Pearl, if you shift the suspension to the games that really count, the punishment definitely carries more heft. That said, this seems pretty fair. It doesn't look as though there was any under-handed dealings occurring between the parties involved: the benefits only went towards travel, lodging, meals and clothes. But rules are rules, so missing nine non-conference games is entirely legitimate.

[BD80]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...outweighs-risk

Gary Parrish has a decent point. The reward clearly outweighs the risk for Selby and others in his financial position that are edging on taking benefits.

I think the NCAA needs to be a little tougher. How about 9 games now and ineligible for any post-season play if the team reaches a tournament?

This 'punishment' by the NCAA will not hinder future prospects from taking benefits. That's the bottom line.

Excuse me? You expect NCbsAA to reduce the value of the tournament by eliminating the best players? I'll be tall and good looking before that ever happens.

[DevilHorns]

Excuse me? You expect NCbsAA to reduce the value of the tournament by eliminating the best players? I'll be tall and good looking before that ever happens.

Ya, I doubt it would happen.

If you do want to crack down on illegal behavior, you have to up the punishment. Eliminating some games off the least important part of the schedule (non-conference, 'warm up' games, as they're generally early) does not provide enough of a deterent effect, IMHO.

What would a punishment with stakes as high as tourney games do? It would put more pressure on college coaches to make sure their recruits are not questionable in terms of violations (who wants to give a scholarship out to a stud player that may not be able to participate come tourney time?) and likewise put pressure on prospects to behave within the rules (the best way to elevate draft status is to perform in the tourney, not worth to miss).

I agree though; would never happen.

[msdukie]

I'm just glad to realize this thread wasn't about Shay Selby.

I had the same thought. Can we change the title, please?

[DukeGirl4ever]

I had the same thought. Can we change the title, please?

Good point! My bad!

[RoyalBlue08]

I guess it's hard to find out the actual facts of this case, but this seems like appropriate punishment to me.

From what I understand, Selby's defense was basically, 'We have a family friend that helped us out a bit.' If that is an accurate description of what occurred, I'm not sure this is something the NCAA wants to get involved policing, because how does one define the line. Does this mean everyone that has a family friend involved in professional basketball is going to be subject to eligibility questions? Does this mean that anyone who plans on playing college basketball can never accept an offer from someone to pick up a check at dinner? And how far does it go back. Are you supposed to know you can't take a gift when you are 10, how about 12? I know it has widely reported that Nolan had very strong relationships with friends of his dad after his passing. Does that mean that if anyone of these people payed for one of his dinners or offered to fly him out to wherever for a visit damaged his amateurism? (I realize everyone is going to hate this example, but I am genuinely interested in where the line is drawn.)