Gotta be a Dookie buying 100K of "bling" to get away with that. It's in the NCAA Rulebook... somewhere.
Cliff Alexander admits his family took money
- Thread starter nookam
- Start date
Gotta be a Dookie buying 100K of "bling" to get away with that. It's in the NCAA Rulebook... somewhere.
Not once in my post did I say that this was one of the handlers for KU. I was just stating that shady stuff happens all the time and handlers are a part of it.
Besides don't you have your own board to celebrate those bread bags bangin down from your rafters?
I just wonder if it was UK would we have gotten the same action from the NCAA that Kansas is getting?
Cliff said his mom was "tricked into taking the money". then he said "we needed the money", they all knew from the cool dad in his shades and the family of 9 attending all the games home and away. Also a week in Orlando and a trip to Philly. No one from KU compliance noticed? GMAFB
![[pfftt]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682173.gif "Pfffttt [pfftt]")
I've seen some of your comments on other threads. You're consistent. It's amazing how your "facts" seem to absolve every program implicated in wrongdoing, including your own which is in the middle of the biggest academic scandal ever..........yet UK was always "probably" guilty in your research. Weird............right?
You don't look at the pictures? While I'm posting..........on Cal's comments about the players and the season goals..........too many threads already. Maybe it's good he keeps his goals and expectations within reach since championships are proving far more difficult. I can see both sides of this one, but both sides should ask why he said what he said. All he had to do was add 5 words, and all would have been happy. But he didn't. Why? All he had to do was say that our goal this year was to help get 8 players reach their dream, and win a national championship. Why were those words left out?
I'm with U9K , trick me up too . I wanna turn around and be like , wtf my bank account is phat .
Did you just say "UKU Compliance? UKUjr. Has never won a t
Title without coming off of, or going on to probation. They are probably the most penalized and dirtiest program in the history of the NCAA. What "compliance department?"
Weren't you the one saying all the articles accusing UNC's basketball team of wrongdoing were wrong?
Not with their dates, but yeah, mostly everything else was opinion (and dumb at that).
You are absolutely correct Bobby. UNC's basketball program did nothing wrong, and everything that has been written about the situation is dumb. I mean every team should be allowed to do what they have done for damn near a quarter of a century. Your insight has really enlightened all of us and we should be thanking you. So I will be the first.. Thank you so much for shedding light on this situation and letting us all know that the Carolina Way is the way it should all be done. I just hope one day my university will be as upstanding as UNC has been.
Last edited:
But you've came to the conclusion that the Camby and Alexander cases are different based on the articles you've read? Also, you keep saying that Alexander, like Maggette shouldn't be punished because neither knew taking money was a NCAA violation. You do know that every school is required to educate incoming athletes about NCAA rules don't you? One of those rules is that it is a violation of NCAA rules to accept money or gifts either before or during their college careers. If the school didn't inform both Alexander and Maggette that accepting impermissible benefits before and during their careers would make them ineligible the schools were guilty of violating NCAA rules. If they did tell the players that taking money made them ineligible and Alexander and Maggette competed knowing they had violated NCAA rules, the schools could still be held accountable under the Memphis rule (strict liability).
The media loves Bill Self. Historically Kansas basketball hasn't been one of the NCAA's sacred cows like UCLA, Duke and UNC but the media hangs off Bill Self's ball hairs so they'll do everything they can to keep this from happening.
If there's even an inkling of a threat that Kansas could be penalized you'll see a flood of articles from the usual suspects supporting and defending them. And the NCAA will cave into what they assume is public opinion and let them off with a slap on the wrist.
The messed up thing is this isn't the first time Kansas has had a kid with amateurism issues. Selby was involved with agents coming in, as was MacLemore while he was on campus.
One of the biggest ironies in college basketball right now is that the powerhouse that has taken the most heat from the media lately has been arguably the cleanest of the bunch.
Duke had the Lance Thomas thing, UNC has the academic stuff. IU is only 4 years removed from probation. UCLA had Adidas funneling money to the Muhammed's to secure his committment, and Kansas has all these kids taking impermissible benefits from agents.
If there's even an inkling of a threat that Kansas could be penalized you'll see a flood of articles from the usual suspects supporting and defending them. And the NCAA will cave into what they assume is public opinion and let them off with a slap on the wrist.
The messed up thing is this isn't the first time Kansas has had a kid with amateurism issues. Selby was involved with agents coming in, as was MacLemore while he was on campus.
One of the biggest ironies in college basketball right now is that the powerhouse that has taken the most heat from the media lately has been arguably the cleanest of the bunch.
Duke had the Lance Thomas thing, UNC has the academic stuff. IU is only 4 years removed from probation. UCLA had Adidas funneling money to the Muhammed's to secure his committment, and Kansas has all these kids taking impermissible benefits from agents.
Eh, McLemore didn't have amateurism issues. A former AAU coach took some money from an agent. Neither McLemore nor any member of his family took any money nor were they aware at all that his former AAU coach had received any money. He broke no rules.
And Selby was punished for his breaking of the rules so not sure what favoritism happened there. Quite frankly, Kansas got royally screwed by the NCAA's handling of the Selby issue because they didn't even make a decision on his case until after the season started, meaning he could not practice with the team at all in the preseason. He subsequently wasn't physically ready when he was finally allowed to play and promptly got injured, affecting the rest of his season.
Please do a little research before you spout all this nonsense as fact.
Premise all of this with the fact that I do not think any of the Alexander family are particularly intelligent people. If the scenario was this:
1) Agent tells Alexanders that the loan is allowed because it's not a payment from an agent, it's a loan from a private equity firm legally licensed to provide loans that needs to be paid back with interest.
2) Private equity firm pressures them to make a quick decision on the loan or lose access to the loan, preventing them from having the time to research the details with the KU compliance department
Then yes, I can absolutely see how the family would in hindsight feel that they were tricked. Odds are that what they were told by the agent that steered them to this private equity firm and by the private equity firm themselves was not even close to the truth. My guess is that the agent that did it thought he was getting in good with a potential lottery pick and the private equity firm landed a loan (at most likely an obscene interest rate) with a client that would provide return business once he was a well paid professional basketball player.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
"Premise" your post with the fact that you're a Kansas fan and you're simply ignoring the facts in the case. Spin it however way you wish but the fact remains it was an NCAA violation whether they were "tricked" or not. Nothing you can say or twist in an effort to deflect these facts will matter.
Here's a quote from a USA Today article from 6/28/13: "Darius Cobb, McLemore's former AAU coach told USA Today Sports in May that Blackstock paid him and McLemore's cousin thousands of dollars in cash and gifts intended to steer McLemore toward certain agents and financial advisors."
After McLemore declared for the draft, Blackstock became a certified agent and signed McLemore as his first client. If you had done a little research you might have known what Montana81 was not nonsense.
While I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that MacLemore didn't know about that stuff it still classifies as an amateurism issue and took place before or while he was on Kansas campus.
And yes, Selby sat out some games and paid money back because of guess what, amateurism issues.
If the NCAA were to hold Kansas and Self to the same standards they held Calipari and Memphis(strict liability) then at the very least all the games MacLemore and Alexander played in would be vacated.
And yes, Selby sat out some games and paid money back because of guess what, amateurism issues.
If the NCAA were to hold Kansas and Self to the same standards they held Calipari and Memphis(strict liability) then at the very least all the games MacLemore and Alexander played in would be vacated.
Even if your scenario is true, a simple call to compliance after the fact would still give time to rectify the mistake.
Kansas.
Never win a championship while not coming off of, or going on to probation. By far the dirtiest school in the history of the NCAA.
I wouldn't expect anything different than jaysquak mouthpieces defending the dirt.
Never win a championship while not coming off of, or going on to probation. By far the dirtiest school in the history of the NCAA.
I wouldn't expect anything different than jaysquak mouthpieces defending the dirt.
They always have an excuse for strict liability. It only matters who knew when depending on
A: who you are
B: did you win a championship?
Had Memphis won the 08 title, it would have been Kansas who had their entire season stripped.
Dirtiest school in history by far.
I wish some people would actually travel in Kansas and Lawrence. There's nothing there at all but a party street. You would have to allow me to do whatever I wanted too. I wouldn't consider their sewer town any other way.
They didn't have time to make a phone call to KU compliance office? They took the loan knowing it was a violation. What HS athlete, especially high level, doesn't know taking money makes you a professional? Do you truly believe that?
. Again, that is if you are a quasi-intelligent person, which I do not get the feeling Cliff's parents are.
They didn't take money. They got a loan. Do you not understand the difference? getting a loan does not make you a professional.
My goodness, based on the general stupidity of the responses on this topic, I am not remotely surprised that Cliff's family got duped into thinking this was OK. Thank you all for proving my point.
Actually, if he had not run into this problem then it is obvious that he WOULD have returned to school. Cliff thought (properly) that another year would have greatly improved his draft status and ultimately would have been worth MILLIONS to him.
have you ever looked at the ncaa rulebook? They do not have one violation (amateurism) punished by one penalty. There are a lot of different flavors of violations, each with their own, clearly defined penalty. The rule that Cliff broke is different than the rule that Rose broke and is different than the rule that Kanter broke. They all have different, clearly stated penalties. You do know you can do a simple google search and find all of this out, don't you?
Wow but wow! How old are you? Have you ever read the NCAA rules?
Dude, you just crossed the stupidity line by a country mile. But, to directly contradict your contention, here is an article about Muhammad from UCLA:
"The date of that interview is important because it indicates that the loan was procured while Muhammad was still an amateur athlete. In fact, Muhammad’s final game as a Bruin came the following day, in a tournament loss to Minnesota that had Muhammad scoring 20 points.
NCAA amateurism rules forbid athletes or their families from receiving financial benefits based on the athlete’s sports ability. The rules also prohibit receiving benefits from agents, financial advisers, or “any person who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletics ability.”
Violators of those rules are deemed ineligible to play"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/father-of-former-ucla-hoops-star-took-loan#.otLW5LRqo
BTW, the violation was a LOAN!!!! Seriously, how stupid are you?
BTW, in YOUR original scenario, you said they might not have had time to check with compliance. Now, you change the argument to them being too stupid. Try to be consistent.
It does when said loan is given based solely on future earnings from basketball. Clearly the ncaa and Kansas agree. Not going to debate with an idiot.
Honestly, how in the world could ANYONE try to claim that because it was a loan that it was not a violation when KU suspended him over allegations of a loan? In fact, they had proof of a loan and nothing else. I think our KU friend may have caught something from bobby tickle.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
A LOAN is based on credit worthiness and if approved, COLLATERAL secures the LOAN. What collateral did Alexander's mother use to secure the LOAN? Was it a deed on a piece of property? Did she have a co-signer? The answer is a big fat NO. The "LOAN" as you call it, was made on her son's future earning power. NCAA violation.
Their proof was that Manuel was from Georgia, he took the ACT at Henry Clay in Lexington, and his test answers were identical to those of the Henry Clay basketball player that sat next to him during the test.
Really ? Learn something new every day. Funny I've always thought that the NCAA has historically given itself pretty wide latitude in terms of what types of punishments to apply. Yet listening to you and Bobby, apparently there's this magical document only a few are privy to which specifies exactly what punishment is administered for a particular rule being broken. Where is this document exactly?
FWIW, the only document I'm aware of is the NCAA Rule book, which I'm linking below.
NCAA Rule Book 2014-15
Section 19 deals with enforcement. For example section 19.9.5 outlines core penalties which MAY be used by a committee in cases where Level I and Level II violations take place. But nowhere does it specify exactly which penalty is to be used etc.
FWIW, although this is a tangent from the Cliff Alexander topic it is interesting to read these things with regard to the UNC scandal. For one, Section 19.1 specifies what is considered a Level I Violation and it includes:
A severe breach of conduct is one or more vio- lations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. Among other exam- ples, the following, in appropriate circumstances, may constitute a severe breach of conduct: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, 7/31/14
(a) Lack of institutional control;
(b) Academic misconduct;
(c) Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation;
(d) Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I
(e) A Bylaw 11.1.1.1 violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program;
(f) Cash payment or other benefits provided by a coach, administrator or representative of the institution’s athletics interests intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a prospective student-athlete;
(g) Third-party involvement in recruiting violations in which institutional officials knew or should have known about the involvement;
(h) Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(i) Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.
(a) Lack of institutional control;
(b) Academic misconduct;
(c) Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation;
(d) Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I
(e) A Bylaw 11.1.1.1 violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program;
(f) Cash payment or other benefits provided by a coach, administrator or representative of the institution’s athletics interests intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a prospective student-athlete;
(g) Third-party involvement in recruiting violations in which institutional officials knew or should have known about the involvement;
(h) Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(i) Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.
Note that things in light blue are all things UNC is likely guilty of during the 20+ year scandal.
Not only that but there are a number of aggravating factors they are guilty of as well, which SHOULD make the penalty even stronger. From Section 19.9.3:
19.9.3 Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties for a particular party. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether aggravating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of aggravating factors include, but are not limited to, the following: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 7/31/14)
(a) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved individual;
(b) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. Additional considerations include:
(d) Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;
(e) Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investiga- tion or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;
(f) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;
(g) Multiple Level II violations by the institution or involved individual;
(h) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
(i) One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;
(j) Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust;
(k) A pattern of noncompliance within the sport program(s) involved;
(l) Conduct intended to generate pecuniary gain for the institution or involved individual;
(m) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(n) Other facts warranting a higher penalty range.
(b) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. Additional considerations include:
(1) The amount of time between the occurrences of violations;
(2) The similarity, severity and types of violations involved;
(3) Efforts to implement previously prescribed corrective measures; and
(4) Other factors the committee deems relevant to the infractions history.
(c) Lack of institutional control;(2) The similarity, severity and types of violations involved;
(3) Efforts to implement previously prescribed corrective measures; and
(4) Other factors the committee deems relevant to the infractions history.
(d) Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;
(e) Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investiga- tion or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;
(f) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;
(g) Multiple Level II violations by the institution or involved individual;
(h) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
(i) One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;
(j) Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust;
(k) A pattern of noncompliance within the sport program(s) involved;
(l) Conduct intended to generate pecuniary gain for the institution or involved individual;
(m) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(n) Other facts warranting a higher penalty range.
As far as what the potential penalties might include for Level I violations, these are outlined in Section 19.9.5 and include:
Competition penalties
Financial Penalties
Scholarship Reductions
Show-Cause Orders
Head Coach Restrictions
Recruiting Restrictions
Probation
Financial Penalties
Scholarship Reductions
Show-Cause Orders
Head Coach Restrictions
Recruiting Restrictions
Probation
To the original point, these are potential penalties for a Level I violation. Doesn't mean that a particular one will be used in a particular case. Only that those are a core set of penalties which could be used in most cases. The same concept applies to lesser violations.
With relation to UNC, I never said that the NCAA would definitely nail UNC, only that based on UNC's decades of fraud they certainly deserve to be nailed. And I've also said if the NCAA fails to take significant action, then the NCAA as a governing body won't be around for much longer.
