Bribery trial
- Thread starter jeffbuckies
- Start date
---
He doesn't have time to look it up, he's too busy trying to raise his message total out of the obvious troll level.
Spica Orbit
I always hear that we (UK) have the deepest pockets of anyone. But, exactly who are we talking about here? UK's athletic dept. is watched like a hawk from both inside and out. I seriously doubt there is a hidden safe in the Craft Center that is filled with $100 bills. So, are we talking about a booster/donor? They might have some access but, Sandy has a pretty firm hold on who gets close to the program. Just not buying that we have high roller fans that can be clandestine bagmen for UK basketball.
I wonder if Duke will get a pass like UNC did when they got busted cheating worse than anyone ever.Things are heating up for K and Duke:
Christian Dawkins, who was in the Vegas hotel room caught on video wiretap, discussing Zion recruitment: "Duke is gonna have their resources. UNC is UNC. Kentucky is gonna have their resources."
Well, at least UNC got dragged through the mud by the media and investigated for 5 years by the NCAA. This won't make it past next weekend for Duke.
Said it since the beginning of this whole thing. Nothing will be done. New rules will be passed that distance the shoe companies etc and the comment will be made that since everyone was doing it no punishments will be given except moving forward. Watch and see. If that is indeed the case and I'm one of these other schools who have been punished I would sue their asses off.
UNC was the one dictating the investigation timeline, not the NCAA. Had UNC been a good partner and acted with integrity, the NCAA investigation and committee decision could’ve been wrapped up in less than a year.
In terms of media coverage of UNC, the media had direct evidence of unethical conduct that was widespread, systemic and occurred over more than a decade. For Duke, all that exists at this point are vague accusations from shady characters and things that appear suspicious.
Point being, we know that UNC was extremely dirty whereas we only suspect Duke was doing shady things. And even if Duke is truly doing these things, they have a long way to go to catch up with a school like UNC. No one has ever come close to the scope of cheating we saw from UNC.
Your post reads like you believe that the NCAA tried everything that they could to punish unc, but there were simply no by-laws violated. Do you really believe this???
UNC investigated itself then the NCAA received their results.
No, my posts are clear on what happened. UNC clearly violated by-laws. There can be no argument about this.
The primary reason UNC got off is because UNC threatened legal action and the committee capitulated to avoid a protracted legal battle. It’s as simple as that.
The fundamental issue with the by-laws had nothing to do with whether UNC violated one. It had to do with what could be admitted as evidence during the committee hearing. UNC commissioned the Wainstein report to supposedly discover the truth, provided copies to both their accreditation agency and the NCAA, but then UNC argued that the NCAA couldn’t use Wainstein as evidence. That alone speaks volumes about their guilt and motivations.
But it was arguments over admissible evidence and threat of litigation that resulted in no penalities. Not questions of whether they cheated. That’s why the membership changed the rules to allow the NCAA to use third party evidence during infractions cases after UNC started trying to weasel out of this. To prevent scumbags like the UNC administration from getting away with similar stunts in the future.
UNC cheated, it’s clear they cheated and they should’ve been punished. Unfortunately they weren’t and that happens sometimes. But I’m sure you’re not too heartbroken over that.
UNC didnt get dragged though the mud, they were protected by the media and given a pass. Only dumb UNC fans who are mad that they can't use "Carolina Way" anymore say they were dragged through the mud.
Perhaps there's two perspectives to this:
Zion, the player, had a lot of regard for UK/Cal and saw playing here as very possible.
Zion's father, the benefits "negotiator", had UK coming in last place in the recruiting sweepstakes and therefore basically had no chance of landing Zion.
????
Another thing to add to this is that about 6 months before the final ruling on UNC, the NCAA rescinded a rule that gave them some jurisdiction on a universitie's academics, a rule that they had previously used to punish other schools. The rule was abolished with no announcement/press release, or explanation ,etc. ,etc.
IIRC, It was discovered by Dan Kane about a month or two after they did it.
Note - My timelines on when the rule was rescinded and DK's article about it may not be totally accurate.
Read up on this case and you see that UNC got off because the NCAA couldn't do anything to really punish them for offering such classes. The NCAA, aka the presidents of the universities, established a long time ago they didn't want the NCAA involved in classroom curriculum or in the difficulty of classes they offered to their students.
If this ended up in court, it looks like UNC would have pointed straight to the chair of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, Greg Sankey, and asked why as the associate commissioner of the SEC why did he allow Auburn to get away with the same crime?
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html
UNC even used the Auburn (And Michigan) cases in their own defense against the NCAA.
"U.N.C. had contended that the case was fundamentally academic in nature, and that athletics staffers were at most tangential to it. The university cited instances in which similar misconduct was alleged at Auburn and Michigan, and the N.C.A.A. did not act."
"“The fact that the courses did not meet our expectations,” Mark Merritt, the university’s general counsel, said in a call with reporters, “doesn’t make them fraudulent.”"
"In a tone that seemed begrudging at times, the panel accepted that reasoning."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html
If you want to blame anyone, look at Greg Sankey, the guy who wants to protect the Alabama and Auburn football programs at all costs.
If this ended up in court, it looks like UNC would have pointed straight to the chair of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, Greg Sankey, and asked why as the associate commissioner of the SEC why did he allow Auburn to get away with the same crime?
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html
UNC even used the Auburn (And Michigan) cases in their own defense against the NCAA.
"U.N.C. had contended that the case was fundamentally academic in nature, and that athletics staffers were at most tangential to it. The university cited instances in which similar misconduct was alleged at Auburn and Michigan, and the N.C.A.A. did not act."
"“The fact that the courses did not meet our expectations,” Mark Merritt, the university’s general counsel, said in a call with reporters, “doesn’t make them fraudulent.”"
"In a tone that seemed begrudging at times, the panel accepted that reasoning."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html
If you want to blame anyone, look at Greg Sankey, the guy who wants to protect the Alabama and Auburn football programs at all costs.
This! His "people" said UK didn't even make his final cut. So there's that anyway.
Exactly. For those asking for a link LOL Ummmm it was said right after his announcement, on national TV, IIRC.
This is what everyone thought. When his Dad was interviewed shortly afterwards, it became clear that UK wasn't even in the mix at the end. That had not been known until the very moment his Dad said this.
Furthermore, we weren't in the mix at the end with Bagley, either. It was basically the exact same in both instances. UK was the assumed leader for both until late in both recruitments. Then, all the sudden, we weren't even being considered late in the process. Very easy to read between the lines with both IMO.
That money is tied up in facilities, coach and staff payroll plus, the figurative value of the brand.
probably get an metal for working under cover for the ncaa to bring this to the forefront. might sound crazy but nothing would surprise me
I am replying to this not bc I dispute anything you have cited here, but bc of the fallacy in the argument that "the NCAA has no jurisdiction over academics" . If ultimately academics determine eligibility to play sports at an NCAA member institution, then how is it possible to surmise UNC (and specifically its athletes who were literally given grades for classes that either didnt exist or did not require work) to MAINTAIN their sports eligibility not receive an impermissible benefit? Ignore the Pell grant fraud, the fraud in the school's CERTIFICATION of their players' eligibility, UNC's blatant lie to SAC's about its admission to the fraud as being a typo(!!!) and of course the obvious benefit of not having to go to class-----and receive A's. The NCAA/Sanky/COI absolutely ignored it all.
Further, their absolutely are NCAA by-laws that prohibit academic fraud. Against UNC, the aforementioned was completely and inexplicably ignored.
I really felt Jay Bilas and many others who ignored these facts were being very intellectually dishonest about UNC. I distinctly remember FSU losing about 25% of its football team missing the bowl game bc of extra tutorial help for the athletes, Syracuse got smoked for the same. UGA and Harrick were effectively black-balled from all NCAA competition bc of 1 fake class that basketball players attended. There absolutely is precedence for harsh punishment over academic improprieties that PALE in comparison to what UNC got away with for 20+ years. Let me say that again. 20+ years!!!!
No, it’s incorrect to say the NCAA could not punish them. Further, there are meaningful differences between the Auburn and UNC cases such that you cannot compare the two.
Regardless of the spin put out by UNC, the reason that UNC was not punished boiled down to evidentiary issues, as stated by Sankey in the article you linked.
“While student-athletes likely benefited from the so-called ‘paper courses’ offered by North Carolina, the information available in the record did not establish that the courses were solely created, offered and maintained as an orchestrated effort to benefit student-athletes,” Sankey said.
The issue facing the committee had to do with the limitations placed on the committee regarding the infractions process itself, not limitations on what constituted a violation. UNC understood this and therefore fought to exclude key pieces of evidence. UNC’s assertion that this wasn’t a violation was merely what they were telling the public, not what was playing out in the process.
It’s clear that UNC cheated and the committee clearly stated that they believed UNC cheated. However, the committee was unwilling to get into a legal battle over which evidence to consider and backed down.
Page 18 of the COI report states:
But given UNC's early admissions, its implementation of corrective measures and its recent distancing of itself from the Cadwalader report, the panel concludes that it is more likely than not that student-athletes received fraudulent credit by the common understanding of what that term means. It is also more likely than not that UNC personnel used the courses to purposely obtain and maintain student-athletes' eligibility.
What UNC did violated NCAA by-laws and should’ve been punished, but UNC got away with it because they were willing to fight tooth and nail to suppress evidence. Don’t fall for the garbage that comes out of UNC.
Seems like a pretty tame day at the trial today. Any bombshells I missed or were all the fireworks yesterday?
I'll be honest, I don't recall the interview with Zion's dad and I cannot find it online...not saying it didn't happen, but what I remember is when he announced there were a bunch of schools (6ish) and EVERYONE was talking Duke, Clemson or UK. It may be a case where we had no chance- and Zion's dad has some sour grapes for whatever reason (ie. Cal wouldn't pony up).
As for Bagley...I don't recall us ever leading for him. In fact from what I remember reading Cal backed off him pretty early...like Fall of 2016? Quit going to major events he was in, etc.
Either way, the whole Zion thing isn't an indictment on Cal...meaning even if Cal was still recruiting him it doesn't mean he was in the sweepstakes...he was probably oblivious to what the dad was asking for or maybe he knew he wasn't getting him. Recall Cal's comments around that time of late recruitment "if someone is asking for something we walk away."
Bagley 100% got paid by someone...and I think he knew it. Zion, not sure he knew anything...I think that was a mommy/daddy thing.
You need to go back and read my post. I never stated the NCAA had no authority over academic matters. I said the NCAA (University Presidents) wants no part of their organization telling member schools how to conduct business inside the classroom or judging them on classroom content or difficulty of classes.
You're also wrong on the Syracuse case being like the UNC case. Their case included Syracuse coaches and staff members doing work for athletes, a booster paying football players and instances of Syracuse athletic department misrepresenting drug tests to keep players eligible.
"Like many of the other severe violations involved in this case, the institution's actions regarding its dismissal of the written drug testing policies and procedures were aimed at preserving student-athletes' ability to compete for the men's basketball program," the NCAA report said.
This Syracuse case resembles UNC's case from 2013 where their football program was put on probation due to players taking money from an agent and a tutor writing papers for football players. Here is the NCAA's official report on Syracuse if you would like to read it.
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=102447
If you want to compare UNC violations to other schools then look at the Auburn situation. Even the NCAA admitted they could do nothing about UNC's violations due to ignoring the Auburn and Michigan cases that I posted about above. UNC had Sankey and the NCAA by the balls and they knew that their case would never hold up.
"U.N.C. had contended that the case was fundamentally academic in nature, and that athletics staffers were at most tangential to it. The university cited instances in which similar misconduct was alleged at Auburn and Michigan, and the N.C.A.A. did not act."
“The fact that the courses did not meet our expectations,” Mark Merritt, the university’s general counsel, said in a call with reporters, “doesn’t make them fraudulent.”
"In a tone that seemed begrudging at times, the panel accepted that reasoning."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html
The NCAA acted like they had no jurisdiction over academics in the UNC case even though everyone knew the fake classes were established to keep athletes eligible. The NCAA is a joke.
I don't think u and I are completely or fundamentally at odds here. IMO, the NCAA, like suggested by ukfanincincy has suggested, had the authority/ability to rightfully hammer UNC----it baselessly chose not to. further, the argument espoused by Bilas and some others in the media----including UNC----was an intellectually dishonest argument and quite frankly missed the more salient point of the academic fraud---affecting basketball eligibility. It absolutely does and there is no debate about it. Further, at that point, it becomes pretty simple. Did UNC use ineligible players? They absolutely/unequivocally did---for years---and that, IMO, should have been game over!
I'm saying that I'm not sure how the NCAA can rule that UNC used ineligible players when they have no authority over classroom content. And that's the way the presidents of the universities wanted it. The NCAA couldn't/wouldn't rule that Auburn or Michigan used ineligible players either. That's why the NCAA shifted gears and tried to hit UNC with charges of impermissible benefits.
Aside from the IS classes, some schools, like Oregon, offer "Academic Credit" for courses such as weightlifting. Those classes are being taught by coaches and offered exclusively to athletes. And the NCAA can't do anything those classes either, even when they're designated for athletes only.
Go back and read up on the Michigan case and you will see why the NCAA was afraid to hammer UNC after letting others schools such as Auburn and Michigan off the hook. Here are some quotes:
"The former employees, granted anonymity by The News because they were concerned that Michigan officials might try to damage their professional reputations, said Shari Acho and Sue Shand, co-directors of the Academic Success Program, have relied on Hagen's independent studies for years to keep athletes with low grades eligible, and they told other athletic counselors to do the same."
"Later, while working in an academic support role, he saw Hagen's independent study classes used - along with other courses - to keep athletes eligible."
"An e-mail obtained through a public records request shows Shand, the program's co-director, working with Hagen or his assistants to set up courses for athletes."
https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/academics/stories/2008/03/athletes_steered_to_prof.html