No, dipshit, I meant exactly what I said. I think you meant "things", not "thinks", though.
Nike/Duke corruption
- Thread starter Nawlij_rivals71126
- Start date
" Bowers confirmed to the News & Observer last week that his client had declined to speak with the NCAA about a possible extra benefits investigation."
Of course, the obvious question is: Why not cooperate if there was no violation?
UNLV didn’t have to vacate wins because of changes to the prospective student athlete review process that went into effect for the 2013-2014 season.
Thanks for the clarification! Now, can you explain that a bit? TIA
BTW, I still can't get the explanation that Rose was ruled ineligible and Maggette never was ruled ineligible so Memphis was punished but Duke was not.
Prior to 2013-2014, the Eligibility Center did not evaluate the validity of entrance exam scores. They merely confirmed receipt of a qualifying test score and the burden, and therefore risk, of assuring that a score was valid sat squarely with the testing agency and schools.
In other words, when people say the NCAA “cleared” Derrick Rose, they’re either being intellectually dishonest or they’re ignorant of how the initial eligibility process worked. The NCAA didn’t “clear” anything. It was a purely transactional process where all culpability rested with the school, hence the very proscribed penalties.
Starting in 2013-2014, the NCAA instituted a test score validation process in response to situations like that of Rose’s SAT. The NCAA was now scrutinizing athletes’ test scores and would proactively notify the testing agencies if they suspected a potential issue. The testing agencies could then initiate their own investigation if they agreed with the NCAA’s suspicion.
More importantly, the new process included a stated policy that the NCAA would not delay eligibility certification despite a potential issue with a test score. So in the case of Jones, the NCAA dug Into his test score, red flagged it as suspicious and notified the testing agency so that they could investigate. The NCAA then essentially told UNLV that “we have concerns that Jones’ test score might be fraudulent, however, we are going to certify his eligibility anyway.”
This change resulted in a shift in penalties for two reasons. One, the NCAA now shared some measure of culpability for any erroneous certifications. Two, there was a recognition that the new process potentially put schools into a terrible Catch-22 where the NCAA was saying the athlete was eligible and that there was also a known eligibility issue. So things like the NLI are now valid but the school can’t risk letting them play. The approach to penalties became more nuanced to account for this, and rightfully so.
As an aside, and specific to the UNLV situation, it would not shock me to find out that the testing agency quietly reinstated Jones’ test score in response to a lawsuit and that non-disclosures were signed.
It was just a couple months before Jones’ situation that the University of Louisiana system sued ACT, Inc. for damages after the ACT scores for several Louisiana Lafayette athletes were invalidated (due to testing center fraud). The University argued that ACT, Inc. had a duty to catch problems at testing centers (similar issue to Jones) and that the school’s NCAA penalties were ultimately due to negligence on the part of ACT, Inc.
To be clear though, I’m not saying that Jones’ score was, in fact, restored.
Thanks, so who was going to pay the remaining balance? Or who ultimately ended up picking up the tab I should ask? Dude obviously didn't have the money or he would have been happy to provide the receipt. Why didn't the NCAA ever look into this matter instead of sweeping it under the rug once Thomas declined to cooperate (which is an automatic level 1 infraction, btw).
Duke cooperated fully with the investigation. Thomas was no longer a student athlete.
Like exactly how did Duke FULLY cooperate? "We don't know anything about it."
About the only difference I can see between BlueBlood66 and
nooneputsbabyinthecorner is the avatar:sunglasses:
Damn, brother, you read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing.
Whether or not he was still a student athlete is irrelevant. When the infraction occurred, he WAS a student athlete. Surely, you can't be that dumb.
Memphis didn’t have wins vacated because Rose didn’t cooperate though. They were vacated because he was ineligible due to test scores.
And to whom does the obligation to cooperate apply?
You might want to familiarize yourself with 10.1 and 19.2.3 to answer that question.
You're so full of **** it's unreal. It's well documented that duke did NOT cooperate with the investigation. Just stop coming here and trying to feed us your ********, it's not going to work. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
The fact that Thomas was no longer a student athlete is irrelevant. When the infraction took place, he WAS a student athlete. THAT'S what IS relevant. Rose was no longer a student athlete, either. We all know how that turned out. You duke fans are flat out insufferable. Y'all will go to any length possible to defend your piece of **** coach and program.
Edit: I may be getting the Thomas and Maggette situations mixed up. I know in one of those that duke didn't cooperate. My apologies if so. Thomas, however, didn't cooperate. Whether or not he was still a student athlete is/was irrelevant.
The fact that Thomas was no longer a student athlete is irrelevant. When the infraction took place, he WAS a student athlete. THAT'S what IS relevant. Rose was no longer a student athlete, either. We all know how that turned out. You duke fans are flat out insufferable. Y'all will go to any length possible to defend your piece of **** coach and program.
Edit: I may be getting the Thomas and Maggette situations mixed up. I know in one of those that duke didn't cooperate. My apologies if so. Thomas, however, didn't cooperate. Whether or not he was still a student athlete is/was irrelevant.
Lol justify it however you like. Point is, duke and uncheat get away with things no other program in the country ever would or ever will.
Where is it well documented that Duke did not cooperate with an NCAA investigation?
10.1 seems irrelevant. 19.2.3 is interesting. Basically the NCAA doesn't hold the school accountable if a former student-athlete refuses to cooperate with an investigation. That is absurd. The school should take the hit. Especially since the NCAA drags their feet until the student-athlete has graduated. They especially drag their feet for some schools.
Unless it's to get a player eligible with the quickness. Then, they're on it like Blue Bonnet.
It would also be absurd to keep every student athlete beholden to the NCAA after they leave college.
But as you can see Thomas not cooperating is not a violation.
19.2.3 establishes the expectation to cooperate and states to whom it applies.
10.1 establishes the actual infraction that has occurred when you fail to cooperate. That is, when you fail to cooperate, you’re charged with violating 10.1 and committing unethical conduct.
19.1.1 merely establishes the level of severity of an allegation involving 10.1. This is a much more recent by-law enacted when they moved from major / secondary infractions to the current scheme of four levels of infractions.
Whether or not the NCAA should hold schools accountable for former students’ cooperation isn’t relevant to this debate. What’s relevant is simply that Thomas’ refusal to cooperate is not an infraction because he is under no obligation to cooperate, per the by-laws.
That’s a dam lie , they refused to talk about the investigation . The jewelry store was paid off and told not to discuss it and the Rat Faced Bastard wouldn’t even address the situation.
It did at one time. I think the bylaws were amended around 2012 or 2013.
Sounds about right. Maybe that's what happened with UMass/Camby. Can't remember. Also, if true, Lance Thomas didn't leave Duke until 2009/10, so ...