So where does the NCAA stand on the Cliff Alexander

[kybassfan]

The thing you keep missing is that both KU and Cliff Alexander have ALREADY fully cooperated with the NCAA. The only ones who haven't are Cliff's Mom and the lending company, and they NCAA can't force them to talk to them.

The NCAA is NOT going to punish KU/Self for something they have no control over.

Self is subject to due process as an American citizen. Kansas on the other hand is a member institution. NCAA can abuse a member institution as they please. This very simple distinction accounts for all the conspiracy theories and accusations of favoritism against the NCAA. This absence of rigor in their investigations has led to inconsistency and lack of professionalism in their inquiries of member institutions.

You are essentially predicting the outcome of a random number generator. Not smart.

 

[JPScott]

The thing you keep missing is that both KU and Cliff Alexander have ALREADY fully cooperated with the NCAA. The only ones who haven't are Cliff's Mom and the lending company, and they NCAA can't force them to talk to them.

The NCAA is NOT going to punish KU/Self for something they have no control over.

Maybe I missed the part about Alexander supposedly cooperating with the NCAA because in your original comment you stated "Alexander: no smoking gun because NCAA can NOT force the parents, Cliff, or the lending institution to talk to them for there to be an investigation to find the smoking gun you want so badly."

So by your own wording you give what you consider to be misleading information. I don't know how much Cliff has cooperated or not cooperated, as I've already said I have no real interest in the case. Rereading your posts you never made that clear either.

But regardless of the his level of cooperating, it doesn't fundamentally change any of my comments as to your incorrect belief that Alexander or Kansas is safe simply because people refuse to cooperate (regardless of whether it's the school, the player or the player's family).

Again in many past cases the NCAA treated any failure to cooperate with them (by anyone) as an admission of guilt. There has never been any due process, never been any presumption of innocence with the NCAA etc. The only thing that has been consistent with respect to the NCAA over the years is that they pursue whatever cases they want to pursue and they choose to believe whatever they want to believe. (regardless of evidence and regardless of whether it even passes the common sense test.)

For anyone to act like the NCAA abides by some sort of set standards or rules, or that they adhere to their own precedents is naive. (and that's assuming that failure to cooperate gives a school sanctuary, which if anything the exact opposite is true.)

FWIW, I'm not predicting that the NCAA will definitely come down on Kansas because of Cliff Alexander, or even whether they should. Only that they certainly COULD if they wanted to, and just because some people are not cooperating doesn't change that whatsoever.

 

[Federal Cat]

NCAA rules enforcement is a joke, NM

 

[rickyzwalters]

Can you give the current update on that? All I could find was his lawyer claiming he was cooperating in March. According the article, the NCAA had info but had not talked to Cliff yet. So, when did he meet with the NCAA?

Around the time of the Big12 tournament, Cliff said publically he had made a written statement to the NCAA and was available for them to ask him anything they wanted regarding the whole thing.

Because the NCAA isn't exactly transparent about what they want, it appeared that they were only interested in talking to Cliffs parents (especially Mom since she took the loan out) but that she never made herself available to talk to the NCAA. Thus a stalemate and nothing new has happened since.

Also at the time Self said to the media he urged the parents to cooperate for Cliffs sake so his eligibility could be cleared up and he could play in the post season.

What seems likely and logical is that the Mom realized she had been caught and if she gave details of what she did in getting the loan then Cliff could be ruled Ineligible and possible KU could also then be punished.

She most likely broke the rules and now Cliff had no choice but to declare for the draft (even though he isn't ready) so she ended up hurting her own son and herself by what she did. Basically she's punished herself.

So again logically Self/KU and fans really don't want her to voluntarily talk to the NCAA since the NCAA can't make her talk.

But I see no reason why KU/Self - who had no knowledge of the loan beforehand - should be punished for something they had no control over. And since Self sat Cliff the moment the NCAA said their MIGHT be an issue my belief is that the NCAA is happy with their response and will take no further action.

You can contrast that with how Cal mishandled the Rose situation and say Self learned from Cal's mistake regarding how to respond to the NCAA.

 

[rickyzwalters]

And, that is the point. Both the KU fan and UNC fan refuse to acknowledge that and then one of them tells JPS that he doesn't understand how the NCAA works. You can't make this stuff up.

There's a HUGE difference between saying the NCAA is inconsistent - which I agree with and any thinking person would be foolish to dispute - and saying if this were UK in this situation, "we'd be hammered because the NCAA is out to get us"

The leap that several UK fans have made in this thread suggesting that the NCAA hates UK and wants to take UK down is ludicrous and not only does it logically not make sense, there's just no evidence for it.

Why would the NCAA want to take down any blue blood, especially BBN, when they make so much money off of all the bluebloods in both CBB and football?

The NCAA is in fact a very reluctant to go after any of the bluebloods (KU, UK do and UNC especially) because of how much money they make off of us.

If there's one thing We can be certain about the NCAA - they are all about making money and don't want to hurt their revenue sources.


And my sincere apologies to JPS for thinking he doesn't know how the NCAA works. I read his posts as hoping/expecting the NCAA to punish KU for this which I'm very confident will not happen.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Around the time of the Big12 tournament, Cliff said publically he had made a written statement to the NCAA and was available for them to ask him anything they wanted regarding the whole thing.

Because the NCAA isn't exactly transparent about what they want, it appeared that they were only interested in talking to Cliffs parents (especially Mom since she took the loan out) but that she never made herself available to talk to the NCAA. Thus a stalemate and nothing new has happened since.

Also at the time Self said to the media he urged the parents to cooperate for Cliffs sake so his eligibility could be cleared up and he could play in the post season.

What seems likely and logical is that the Mom realized she had been caught and if she gave details of what she did in getting the loan then Cliff could be ruled Ineligible and possible KU could also then be punished.

She most likely broke the rules and now Cliff had no choice but to declare for the draft (even though he isn't ready) so she ended up hurting her own son and herself by what she did. Basically she's punished herself.

So again logically Self/KU and fans really don't want her to voluntarily talk to the NCAA since the NCAA can't make her talk.

But I see no reason why KU/Self - who had no knowledge of the loan beforehand - should be punished for something they had no control over. And since Self sat Cliff the moment the NCAA said their MIGHT be an issue my belief is that the NCAA is happy with their response and will take no further action.

You can contrast that with how Cal mishandled the Rose situation and say Self learned from Cal's mistake regarding how to respond to the NCAA.

I agree with you that Self did the RIGHT thing by sitting Cliff.

What I don't like is Self not wanting her to talk. To me, that is NOT cooperating. If she indeed got the loan and the kid was unaware, I would be okay with the NCAA just saying that and closing the case.

But, the fact that she won't talk, to me, is problematic and most likely means there is more to the story.

As for the NCAA, they can apply strict liabilty as they did for Memphis or apply the "I don't know" defense they used for Maggette

 

[saxonburgcat]

There's a HUGE difference between saying the NCAA is inconsistent - which I agree with and any thinking person would be foolish to dispute - and saying if this were UK in this situation, "we'd be hammered because the NCAA is out to get us"

The leap that several UK fans have made in this thread suggesting that the NCAA hates UK and wants to take UK down is ludicrous and not only does it logically not make sense, there's just no evidence for it.

Why would the NCAA want to take down any blue blood, especially BBN, when they make so much money off of all the bluebloods in both CBB and football?

The NCAA is in fact a very reluctant to go after any of the bluebloods (KU, UK do and UNC especially) because of how much money they make off of us.

If there's one thing We can be certain about the NCAA - they are all about making money and don't want to hurt their revenue sources.


And my sincere apologies to JPS for thinking he doesn't know how the NCAA works. I read his posts as hoping/expecting the NCAA to punish KU for this which I'm very confident will not happen.

I am not exactly a conspiracy nut so I don't buy all that anti-UK stuff. But, we do know that the NCAA targets certain programs. That was revealed by NCAA staffers.

Is it coincidence that Bledsoe's transcript was leaked AND NCAA staffers accused the NCAA of illegally releasing transcripts? Is it a coincidence that private NCAA investigation material was leaked to a NYTimes writer about Noel? We know nothing about any other investigation but we knew all about that one.

And, why was Maggette and Duke exonerated? He took money, refused to cooperate, then lied and finally admitted to it. NCAA said neither he nor Duke knew a violation had occurred. Using that standard, why was Memphis hammered under strict liability?

Do you see why some of us think the NCAA has targeted us and our coach?

 

[saxonburgcat]

While I am on a roll, why was Cal and UK reprimanded by the NCAA and then threatened by the same for honoring Cal's win total? After that happened posters on this site found numerous examples of other programs recognizing vacated wins!!!!

Yet, the NCAA has yet to say a word about those....are we paranoid for a reason?

 

[rickyzwalters]

I agree with you that Self did the RIGHT thing by sitting Cliff.

What I don't like is Self not wanting her to talk. To me, that is NOT cooperating. If she indeed got the loan and the kid was unaware, I would be okay with the NCAA just saying that and closing the case.

But, the fact that she won't talk, to me, is problematic and most likely means there is more to the story.

As for the NCAA, they can apply strict liabilty as they did for Memphis or apply the "I don't know" defense they used for Maggette

Let's say the situation was reversed and Cal had recruited a probable OAD whose parent take out a loan for the OAD's future earnings before the season that Cal did NOT know about.

Somehow the NCAA learns of the parents loan, has questions, and contacts Cal and recommends to Cal sit the OAD until they gather more info that could affect the players eligibility and by implication cause UK to potentially have wins vacated.

Cal sits the OAD, cooperates fully with the NCAA and even publically says in the press he hopes the parents cooperate with the NCAA as well.

Now honestly you know Cal is hoping the parents keep their mouths closed and all UK fans everywhere are hoping and praying the same thing.

What more do you - the honest, honorable UK fan that you are - want Cal to do?

This is exactly what has happened with Alexander and KU. What more do you honestly think Self should do?

 

[rickyzwalters]

While I am on a roll, why was Cal and UK reprimanded by the NCAA and then threatened by the same for honoring Cal's win total? After that happened posters on this site found numerous examples of other programs recognizing vacated wins!!!!

Yet, the NCAA has yet to say a word about those....are we paranoid for a reason?

You said it, you are on quite a roll.

So with all these different situations what has happened to Cal/UK?

NOTHING

If the NCAA was really out to get UK, wouldn't something further - like more in depth investigations and punishments - come to UK?

 

[kybassfan]

Well, there's no conspiracy there. However, I have to correct on one point. The hissy that the NCAA threw over Cal's wins was at UK, not him, aside from a mild finger wagging. In fact, it was so silly that the NCAA issued a retraction of sorts when they indicated that they followed up on petty stuff like that when folks brought it to their attention. In essence they adopted the don't ask don't tell stance. Now if you want a conspiracy, go hunt up the whiners that reported it to the NCAA.

So is the NCAA out to get us? Naw, not at all. Is the NCAA spineless, petty and easily manipulated? You bet your bottom dollar.

Regarding Bledsoe, that whole mess got caught up in the local sports politics, jealous coaches and media desperate for a story. The "injured (read whiney) parties jerked the ring in the NCAA's nose. That could have easily gotten out of hand. Fortunately, there was nothing substantial to it and so the NCAA could not use Bledsoe to get to KY. Essentially, that's the whole due process thing regarding an individual coming into play.

The conspiracy theory stuff is just silly. Its rather more like two guys in a bear cage with a hungry blind mangy old bear. One guy pokes the bear with a stick and the bear eats the other guy. The bear has nothing against the guy he ate, save he knows he got poked. Poker punished, belly full is all he can comprehend. You want a conspiracy, find the guy with the stick.

 

[rickyzwalters]

Kentucky fans should actually consider themselves very fortunate regarding this situation with Alexander's parents.

Since Cal recruits 3-4 times the OADs that Self does the liklihood of something like this happening to Cal/UK is about 3-4 times more likely than it happening to Self/KU.

 

[KopiKat]

Kentucky fans should actually consider themselves very fortunate regarding this situation with Alexander's parents.

Since Cal recruits 3-4 times the OADs that Self does the liklihood of something like this happening to Cal/UK is about 3-4 times more likely than it happening to Self/KU.

Oh, just make up some random numbers and hope they stick already, why don't you? You did that earlier in this thread when you said that "several posters in this thread" said the Alexander and Rose circumstances were like-for-like, when maybe just ONE poster, prior to your statement, had implied similarity on the basis of Alexander's mother's lack of cooperation with the NCAA. Then, it's really been all you and Bobbyticklehimself pushing the talk about why the NCAA will not punish Kansas when this thread was probably started for the purpose of discussing whether wins would be removed from the books, as it is reasonable to question Alexander's eligibility. Everybody "gets it". We know where you two jerk offs are coming from. We know you didn't get laid this weekend or any other weekend. Internet porn and UK hate are the two best things going on in your two pathetic lives right now. We. Get. It.

 

[saxonburgcat]

You said it, you are on quite a roll.

So with all these different situations what has happened to Cal/UK?

NOTHING

If the NCAA was really out to get UK, wouldn't something further - like more in depth investigations and punishments - come to UK?

Kanter was ruled ineligible when other players in similar situations weren't. UK was blasted over the win thing and reprimanded.

Bledsoe and Noel were thoroughly investigated but no violations were found.

UK and Sandy Bell have put in countless hours to make sure we are in compliance but the NCAA is going to keep digging.

The NCAA is Boss Hogg and UK is the Duke boys!

 

[saxonburgcat]

Let's say the situation was reversed and Cal had recruited a probable OAD whose parent take out a loan for the OAD's future earnings before the season that Cal did NOT know about.

Somehow the NCAA learns of the parents loan, has questions, and contacts Cal and recommends to Cal sit the OAD until they gather more info that could affect the players eligibility and by implication cause UK to potentially have wins vacated.

Cal sits the OAD, cooperates fully with the NCAA and even publically says in the press he hopes the parents cooperate with the NCAA as well.

Now honestly you know Cal is hoping the parents keep their mouths closed and all UK fans everywhere are hoping and praying the same thing.

What more do you - the honest, honorable UK fan that you are - want Cal to do?

This is exactly what has happened with Alexander and KU. What more do you honestly think Self should do?

What I want is the the truth. If it is bad, so be it. We live in a society in whch integrity is gone. Ethics are gone, as well.

UNC has an ethics professor lie, cheat and coverup. UNC has repeatedly violated its own honor code by refusing to deal with blatant cheating. I don't want UK to become another UNC or UNLV. BTW, UNLV has had higher standards than UNC.

 

[rickyzwalters]

What I want is the the truth. If it is bad, so be it. We live in a society in whch integrity is gone. Ethics are gone, as well.

UNC has an ethics professor lie, cheat and coverup. UNC has repeatedly violated its own honor code by refusing to deal with blatant cheating. I don't want UK to become another UNC or UNLV. BTW, UNLV has had higher standards than UNC.

So you sir are mr black and white, no shades of gray allowed. Mr truth and justice and everything virtuous? I'm really curious what you thought of Cal before he came to UK?

There is no more truth to be uncovered in this situation unless Cliff's mom talks to the NCAA. Self has asked her to talk but like the NCAA cannot force her to talk.

Again I ask you if this exact situation were happening to an OAD that Cal had recruited what would you want him to do that hasn't already been done?

 

[rickyzwalters]

Kanter was ruled ineligible when other players in similar situations weren't. UK was blasted over the win thing and reprimanded.

Bledsoe and Noel were thoroughly investigated but no violations were found.

UK and Sandy Bell have put in countless hours to make sure we are in compliance but the NCAA is going to keep digging.

The NCAA is Boss Hogg and UK is the Duke boys!

Kansas also has had players ruled Ineligible - Ben MacLemore his freshman season as well as Jamari Traylor. It happens quite frequently these days. But I don't think the NCAA is "out get us".

When was the last time UK was punished for something by the NCAA though?

Take the tin foil hat off mr conspiracy guy - sheesh.

 

[saxonburgcat]

So you sir are mr black and white, no shades of gray allowed. Mr truth and justice and everything virtuous? I'm really curious what you thought of Cal before he came to UK?

There is no more truth to be uncovered in this situation unless Cliff's mom talks to the NCAA. Self has asked her to talk but like the NCAA cannot force her to talk.

Again I ask you if this exact situation were happening to an OAD that Cal had recruited what would you want him to do that hasn't already been done?

1) Nope, I know all about grey. But, truth is truth. I want the truth to come out and I want the NCAA to make a fair and just ruling. I have no idea why that is so hard for you to understand.

2) I never really had an opinion of Cal before UK and that is the truth. Even under my previous screenname, I never posted on that subject.

3) I don't want to say a whole lot about what I think of the UMass and Memphis situations now in regard to Cal because it is too complex to discuss. It isn't completely back and white in my mind.

4) Your last question is impossible to answer. You said that Self asked her to cooperate and that he also hopes she doesn't cooperate. Apparently, you are convinced that this is not good for KU and your hopes for getting away with it is for the lady to not cooperate.
I guess if you are okay with tainted wins then so be it.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Kansas also has had players ruled Ineligible - Ben MacLemore his freshman season as well as Jamari Traylor. It happens quite frequently these days. But I don't think the NCAA is "out get us".

When was the last time UK was punished for something by the NCAA though?

Take the tin foil hat off mr conspiracy guy - sheesh.

Did those players get ruled ineligible when players in the SAME situation from other schools got cleared? Research the Kanter situation, dude. JPS has a lot of stuff comparing his situation to others. BTW, did Emmert make negative statements about those players while their cases were ongoing like he did with Kanter?

BTW, NCAA staff said that the NCAA targets programs and coaches and has released transcripts to the media. Explain how the media got Bledsoe's transcript and how the NYT writer got confidental NCAA information if you can.

 

[JPScott]

Kansas also has had players ruled Ineligible - Ben MacLemore his freshman season as well as Jamari Traylor. It happens quite frequently these days. But I don't think the NCAA is "out get us".

When was the last time UK was punished for something by the NCAA though?

Take the tin foil hat off mr conspiracy guy - sheesh.

Ben McLemore and Jamari Traylor were academic partial qualifiers who sat out but eventually played for Kansas. That part was not out of the ordinary. (although apparently McLemore was also accused of improper benefits which still didn't prevent him from being reinstated.)

Enes Kanter was declared 'permanently ineligible' from ever competing collegiately. There's quite a difference.

 

[rickyzwalters]

1) Nope, I know all about grey. But, truth is truth. I want the truth to come out and I want the NCAA to make a fair and just ruling. I have no idea why that is so hard for you to understand.

2) I never really had an opinion of Cal before UK and that is the truth. Even under my previous screenname, I never posted on that subject.

3) I don't want to say a whole lot about what I think of the UMass and Memphis situations now in regard to Cal because it is too complex to discuss. It isn't completely back and white in my mind.

4) Your last question is impossible to answer. You said that Self asked her to cooperate and that he also hopes she doesn't cooperate. Apparently, you are convinced that this is not good for KU and your hopes for getting away with it is for the lady to not cooperate.
I guess if you are okay with tainted wins then so be it.

Good grief dude.

It's very easy to answer really. Simply tell me if this exact situation were to happen to a UK OAD what you would want Cal to do that Self hasn't already done? You're dodging and you know it. The answer is there is absolutely nothing else Self (or any other coach) can realistically do that he hasn't already done. And if that isn't the answer then what should he do pray tell???

I on the other hand have been overly honest. I believe Cliffs Mom took out a loan that she shouldn't have. My gut tells me Cliff knew about it too although there is no proof of this. If this is true then Cliff and his mom have punished themselves by not allowing Cliff to play the last 3 weeks of the season and having him play may have helped KU advance further in the tournament. It also forced Cliff to declare for the draft before he was ready and has hurt his draft stock and future earning potential. I believe Self/KU had no knowledge of any of this and only played Cliff because he thought he was eligible.

Bottom line Self and KU did nothing wrong and the right thing is for them to NOT be punished. And I'm pretty confident the NCAA is taking the same approach.

99% of UK fans would feel the same way if this situation happened to an OAD at UK (but maybe not you because you think any possible violation of a rule must be punished apparently - even though there is not proof).

Again Cliffs mom and Cliff (if he knew about it) have punished themselves already.

If the letter of the law is that KU/self should be punished for something they knew nothing about then be careful what you wish for because UK has more OAD exposure than any other program and something like this could easily happen to UK and Cal.

All it takes is one parent to take an improper benefit from an agent to make their OAD kid Ineligible (even though Cal would have no knowledge) and the NCAA (who according to a number in this thread) would have all the reason they need to "Get Kentucky and Cal" and vacate a whole season.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Good grief dude.

It's very easy to answer really. Simply tell me if this exact situation were to happen to a UK OAD what you would want Cal to do that Self hasn't already done? You're dodging and you know it. The answer is there is absolutely nothing else Self (or any other coach) can realistically do that he hasn't already done. And if that isn't the answer then what should he do pray tell

Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

Sorry dude but you set up the example that Self told her to cooperate even though he doesn't want her to do that. Do I want Cal to tell someone to do something which he doesn't want to happen????

Why can't we get back to the truth? Why can't Self be open and honest? Why can't he tell her to tell the truth and mean it or do you believe he has no integrity?

I want Cal to be honest and open with the truth. But, as I said, I want the NCAA to deal with it fairly and justly.

The NCAA doesn't have to vacate games for violations of amateur status. In the case of Maggette, they exonerated both Duke and Maggette. In all honesty, if mom comes clean in this case and it is bad, I strongly suspect the NCAA will not punish KU because the player was supended. But, of course, if they apply strict liability, the season is vacated.

Our discussion on this and your fear of the truth is proof that the NCAA isn't consistent or fair and will punish one program and not another. Otherwise, why do you not want the truth to come out expecting to receive the SAME treatment given to Duke??????? That is the question I want you to answer....

 

[rickyzwalters]

Sorry dude but you set up the example that Self told her to cooperate even though he doesn't want her to do that. Do I want Cal to tell someone to do something which he doesn't want to happen????

Why can't we get back to the truth? Why can't Self be open and honest? Why can't he tell her to tell the truth and mean it or do you believe he has no integrity?

I want Cal to be honest and open with the truth. But, as I said, I want the NCAA to deal with it fairly and justly.

The NCAA doesn't have to vacate games for violations of amateur status. In the case of Maggette, they exonerated both Duke and Maggette. In all honesty, if mom comes clean in this case and it is bad, I strongly suspect the NCAA will not punish KU because the player was supended. But, of course, if they apply strict liability, the season is vacated.

Our discussion on this and your fear of the truth is proof that the NCAA isn't consistent or fair and will punish one program and not another. Otherwise, why do you not want the truth to come out expecting to receive the SAME treatment given to Duke??????? That is the question I want you to answer....

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite movies, (Shawshank Redemption) are you really that obtuse?

I have no way to know what Self actually knows or thinks. But given the circumstances my best guess is Self hopes Cliff's mom never talks to the NCAA. If it were Cal instead of Self in the identical scenario I'd guess Cal would hope/ want the same thing - for Mom to shut up.

I give up. You want to cast judgements on me based on what I THINK (not know or have any proof of) happened so please knock yourself out. I no longer care to waste my time because you've clearly already made your judgement of me. Good Job.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Let's say the situation was reversed and Cal had recruited a probable OAD whose parent take out a loan for the OAD's future earnings before the season that Cal did NOT know about.

Somehow the NCAA learns of the parents loan, has questions, and contacts Cal and recommends to Cal sit the OAD until they gather more info that could affect the players eligibility and by implication cause UK to potentially have wins vacated.

Cal sits the OAD, cooperates fully with the NCAA and even publically says in the press he hopes the parents cooperate with the NCAA as well.

Now honestly you know Cal is hoping the parents keep their mouths closed and all UK fans everywhere are hoping and praying the same thing.

What more do you - the honest, honorable UK fan that you are - want Cal to do?

This is exactly what has happened with Alexander and KU. What more do you honestly think Self should do?

In the 08 championship game each team had a player whose eligibility was in question for something that happened before either player ever reached campus. Rose was suspected of cheating on the SAT and Arthur was suspected of having at least 1 grade changed to prevent his high school district from declaring him academically ineligible. In both cases there was a strong suspicion that both cheated but the NCAA didn't have definitive proof.

Both players played the entire season after being cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse. After the season both players were investigated for academic fraud. Rose was declared retroactively ineligible and Memphis was stripped of 38 wins and their tournament appearance even though the NCAA admitted they had no definitive proof that Rose didn't take the test. Arthur's high school was stripped of it's state title after it was determined his grade had been changed, proving that he had committed academic fraud. In that case, the NCAA determined Kansas should not be punished because, like Memphis, they had no way of knowing that Arthur should have been ineligible since he, like Rose had been ruled eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse. That sounds like a clear case of selective enforcement to me.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

In the 08 championship game each team had a player whose eligibility was in question for something that happened before either player ever reached campus. Rose was suspected of cheating on the SAT and Arthur was suspected of having at least 1 grade changed to prevent his high school district from declaring him academically ineligible. In both cases there was a strong suspicion that both cheated but the NCAA didn't have definitive proof.

Both players played the entire season after being cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse. After the season both players were investigated for academic fraud. Rose was declared retroactively ineligible and Memphis was stripped of 38 wins and their tournament appearance even though the NCAA admitted they had no definitive proof that Rose didn't take the test. Arthur's high school was stripped of it's state title after it was determined his grade had been changed, proving that he had committed academic fraud. In that case, the NCAA determined Kansas should not be punished because, like Memphis, they had no way of knowing that Arthur should have been ineligible since he, like Rose had been ruled eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse. That sounds like a clear case of selective enforcement to me.

For the love of god, please don't start taking steps backwards. We've gone over this so many times. Please, read this, read it very carefully.

The NCAA did not rule Rose ineligible because of their own investigation, they ruled Rose ineligible because the ETS yanked his SAT. They (the NCAA) had no other choice, Rose did not meet all the requirements to play at Memphis -- he had no official SAT score. THE NCAA HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. In regards to Aurthur, the school board did not invalidate his diploma, or any of the other requirements he needed to play at KU. Do you see how the two situations are different?

If you want a closer comparison, compare Arthur with Bledsoe. Yeah, let's do that. In both cases there were investigations in alleged improper grade changes. You know about Arthur, so I'll just inform you what they found with Bledsoe.

"Though the investigators concluded that the instructor's reasons for changing the grade were "not credible," and that a significant number of his high school grades were written over to reflect higher grades, the school board voted to allow the grade to stand, and the NCAA declared its investigation of Bledsoe's eligibility closed the following week."

Guess what the NCAA did to UK, you know that school that everyone here thinks gets picked on by the NCAA...they didn't do anything. Just like they didn't do anything to KU. Two very similar situations and two very similar outcomes from the NCAA.

Oh, and by the way, the NCAA exonerated Cal while at UMass and Memphis...at a time(s) when he was getting bashed by everyone for cheating.

Finally, if anything, the KU fan has more to complain about from the NCAA than UK fans...just look how many times they've been investigated, placed on probation, and even worse.

 

[saxonburgcat]

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite movies, (Shawshank Redemption) are you really that obtuse?

I have no way to know what Self actually knows or thinks. But given the circumstances my best guess is Self hopes Cliff's mom never talks to the NCAA. If it were Cal instead of Self in the identical scenario I'd guess Cal would hope/ want the same thing - for Mom to shut up.

I give up. You want to cast judgements on me based on what I THINK (not know or have any proof of) happened so please knock yourself out. I no longer care to waste my time because you've clearly already made your judgement of me. Good Job.

I am sorry that you were so easily offended by my posts. I am just trying to make sense of where you are coming from. I realize that you have some strange idea that the NCAA would hammer KU if the truth comes out even though they completely exonerated Duke. I guess you also have a tin hat on along with a lot of UK fans thinking the NCAA is out to get you.

 

[beaker23288]

In regards to the '08 finals and Rose and Arthur, if Memphis wins that game there is NO WAY they would've retroactively declared Rose ineligible. Everyone can argue against KU, UK, & UNC, but the biggest crooks of all, by far, is the NCAA. They will never make a championship team vacate a season. It's bad business for that little cash cow they got going on in March. I don't expect UNC to have to vacate any of their championships (not saying they don't possibly deserve to), and it's a tad interesting that Syracuse cheated or whatever the NCAA claimed they did in pretty much every year except 03. Whatever, I hate the NCAA. They're clowns

 

[saxonburgcat]

For the love of god, please don't start taking steps backwards. We've gone over this so many times. Please, read this, read it very carefully.

The NCAA did not rule Rose ineligible because of their own investigation, they ruled Rose ineligible because the ETS yanked his SAT. They (the NCAA) had no other choice, Rose did not meet all the requirements to play at Memphis -- he had no official SAT score. THE NCAA HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. In regards to Aurthur, the school board did not invalidate his diploma, or any of the other requirements he needed to play at KU. Do you see how the two situations are different?

If you want a closer comparison, compare Arthur with Bledsoe. Yeah, let's do that. In both cases there were investigations in alleged improper grade changes. You know about Arthur, so I'll just inform you what they found with Bledsoe.

"Though the investigators concluded that the instructor's reasons for changing the grade were "not credible," and that a significant number of his high school grades were written over to reflect higher grades, the school board voted to allow the grade to stand, and the NCAA declared its investigation of Bledsoe's eligibility closed the following week."

Guess what the NCAA did to UK, you know that school that everyone here thinks gets picked on by the NCAA...they didn't do anything. Just like they didn't do anything to KU. Two very similar situations and two very similar outcomes from the NCAA.

Oh, and by the way, the NCAA exonerated Cal while at UMass and Memphis...at a time(s) when he was getting bashed by everyone for cheating.

Finally, if anything, the KU fan has more to complain about from the NCAA than UK fans...just look how many times they've been investigated, placed on probation, and even worse.

The bold part is absolutely false. The NCAA did NOT have to rule the way they did even with an invalidated SAT. If they did, explain why!

As I recall, 2 separate NCAA officials stated publicly that IF it were determined that Maggette took the money, Duke would be punished. That was supposed to be the way it HADTO BE RULED!

However, the NCAA chose to rule completely contrary to the rules. They make the rules and have said that they can rule however they want. So, NO they did not have to declare him ineligible and vacate games.

As in the case of athletes taking money before college, they could have provided a remedy. They chose to be punitive in the Memphis case.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

The bold part is absolutely false. The NCAA did NOT have to rule the way they did even with an invalidated SAT. If they did, explain why!

As I recall, 2 separate NCAA officials stated publicly that IF it were determined that Maggette took the money, Duke would be punished. That was supposed to be the way it HADTO BE RULED!

However, the NCAA chose to rule completely contrary to the rules. They make the rules and have said that they can rule however they want. So, NO they did not have to declare him ineligible and vacate games.

As in the case of athletes taking money before college, they could have provided a remedy. They chose to be punitive in the Memphis case.

Are you being serious now?

By the way, there were other players who took money from Piggie. We should look at how the NCAA acted in those instances vs. what they did to Maggette/Duke. Imo, this would be a better way to show inconsistency in their rulings.

 

[rickyzwalters]

In the 08 championship game each team had a player whose eligibility was in question for something that happened before either player ever reached campus. Rose was suspected of cheating on the SAT and Arthur was suspected of having at least 1 grade changed to prevent his high school district from declaring him academically ineligible. In both cases there was a strong suspicion that both cheated but the NCAA didn't have definitive proof.

Both players played the entire season after being cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse. After the season both players were investigated for academic fraud. Rose was declared retroactively ineligible and Memphis was stripped of 38 wins and their tournament appearance even though the NCAA admitted they had no definitive proof that Rose didn't take the test. Arthur's high school was stripped of it's state title after it was determined his grade had been changed, proving that he had committed academic fraud. In that case, the NCAA determined Kansas should not be punished because, like Memphis, they had no way of knowing that Arthur should have been ineligible since he, like Rose had been ruled eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse. That sounds like a clear case of selective enforcement to me.

"In that case, the NCAA determined Kansas should not be punished because, like Memphis, they had no way of knowing that Arthur should have been ineligible since he, like Rose had been ruled eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse. "

Except that

1 Cal/Memphis was notified PRIOR to playing Rose that Rose's academic eligibility was being questioned. And KU was never notified that Arthur's academic eligibility was ever in question at KU

AND

2 Rose test score was found to be invalid by the ETS and Arthur's valid diploma was never in question by his school district

Other than that they're identical.

 

[beaker23288]

"In that case, the NCAA determined Kansas should not be punished because, like Memphis, they had no way of knowing that Arthur should have been ineligible since he, like Rose had been ruled eligible by the NCAA Clearinghouse. "

Except that

1 Cal/Memphis was notified PRIOR to playing Rose that Rose's academic eligibility was being questioned. And KU was never notified that Arthur's academic eligibility was ever in question at KU

AND

2 Rose test score was found to be invalid by the ETS and Arthur's valid diploma was never in question by his school district

Other than that they're identical.

My point is, regardless of whatever similar/disimilar facts regarding Rose & Arthur and their eligiblity, had Memphis won the game, the NCAA would have not even given a thought of declaring Rose ineligible causing Memphis to forfeit the championship, thus no champion in '08. It doesn't matter if they had a "smoking gun" for proof. No way, no how, will the NCAA ever make a champion vacate their season.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Are you being serious now?

By the way, there were other players who took money from Piggie. We should look at how the NCAA acted in those instances vs. what they did to Maggette/Duke. Imo, this would be a better way to show inconsistency in their rulings.

Okay dude,

EVERY single player and program was punished EXCEPT for Maggette/Duke. Admittedly, there was one complication and that is that Maggette had left for the NBA when it was determined that he had taken money.

BUT, and it is a big BUT, the NCAA exonerated Maggette and Duke. This was AFTER Maggette initially refused to cooperate and then lied and finally told the truth when the evidence came out in the federal investigation.

The point is that BY RULE as confirmed by NCAA officials, Duke should have been punished but not only did the NCAA not punish them but they also exonerated Maggette and Duke.

Now explain to me WHY the NCAA had to punish Memphis if they don't even follow their own guidelines to punish Duke? I will hang up and listen...

 

[Lumpy 2]

For the love of god, please don't start taking steps backwards. We've gone over this so many times. Please, read this, read it very carefully.

The NCAA did not rule Rose ineligible because of their own investigation, they ruled Rose ineligible because the ETS yanked his SAT. They (the NCAA) had no other choice, Rose did not meet all the requirements to play at Memphis -- he had no official SAT score. THE NCAA HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. In regards to Aurthur, the school board did not invalidate his diploma, or any of the other requirements he needed to play at KU. Do you see how the two situations are different?

If you want a closer comparison, compare Arthur with Bledsoe. Yeah, let's do that. In both cases there were investigations in alleged improper grade changes. You know about Arthur, so I'll just inform you what they found with Bledsoe.

"Though the investigators concluded that the instructor's reasons for changing the grade were "not credible," and that a significant number of his high school grades were written over to reflect higher grades, the school board voted to allow the grade to stand, and the NCAA declared its investigation of Bledsoe's eligibility closed the following week."

Guess what the NCAA did to UK, you know that school that everyone here thinks gets picked on by the NCAA...they didn't do anything. Just like they didn't do anything to KU. Two very similar situations and two very similar outcomes from the NCAA.

Oh, and by the way, the NCAA exonerated Cal while at UMass and Memphis...at a time(s) when he was getting bashed by everyone for cheating.

Finally, if anything, the KU fan has more to complain about from the NCAA than UK fans...just look how many times they've been investigated, placed on probation, and even worse.

You want to make the comparison of Arthur with Bledsoe and the difference is that The NCAA had proof

For the love of god, please don't start taking steps backwards. We've gone over this so many times. Please, read this, read it very carefully.

The NCAA did not rule Rose ineligible because of their own investigation, they ruled Rose ineligible because the ETS yanked his SAT. They (the NCAA) had no other choice, Rose did not meet all the requirements to play at Memphis -- he had no official SAT score. THE NCAA HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. In regards to Aurthur, the school board did not invalidate his diploma, or any of the other requirements he needed to play at KU. Do you see how the two situations are different?

If you want a closer comparison, compare Arthur with Bledsoe. Yeah, let's do that. In both cases there were investigations in alleged improper grade changes. You know about Arthur, so I'll just inform you what they found with Bledsoe.

"Though the investigators concluded that the instructor's reasons for changing the grade were "not credible," and that a significant number of his high school grades were written over to reflect higher grades, the school board voted to allow the grade to stand, and the NCAA declared its investigation of Bledsoe's eligibility closed the following week."

Guess what the NCAA did to UK, you know that school that everyone here thinks gets picked on by the NCAA...they didn't do anything. Just like they didn't do anything to KU. Two very similar situations and two very similar outcomes from the NCAA.

Oh, and by the way, the NCAA exonerated Cal while at UMass and Memphis...at a time(s) when he was getting bashed by everyone for cheating.

Finally, if anything, the KU fan has more to complain about from the NCAA than UK fans...just look how many times they've been investigated, placed on probation, and even worse.

If you want to bring up Bledsoe maybe we should add UNC to the discussion. Bledsoe's case was investigated and no proof of wrongdoing was found. In Arthur's case there was enough evidence to strip his team of it's state championship. We have seen the transcripts of 2 ex-UNC players who maintained eligibility through academic fraud. McCants admitted that he received A's for classes he never attended and had papers written for him. The investigation commissioned by the school found that at least 3,100 students have fraudulent degrees and almost half of them are athletes.

You should read the Wainstein Report very carefully, including the email attachments that implicate the basketball staff and you will realize what has gone on at UNC for at least 2 decades is the biggest scandal in the history of college basketball and all the coaches, including Dean, Guthridge, Doherty and Williams are all dirty.

 

[rickyzwalters]

My point is, regardless of whatever similar/disimilar facts regarding Rose & Arthur and their eligiblity, had Memphis won the game, the NCAA would have not even given a thought of declaring Rose ineligible causing Memphis to forfeit the championship, thus no champion in '08. It doesn't matter if they had a "smoking gun" for proof. No way, no how, will the NCAA ever make a champion vacate their season.

You know that's a well articulated awesome OPINION.

Too bad it's not based on any actual historical facts and is really just a hypothetical.

I can come up with plenty of those too, and no one will care to hear them.

 

[beaker23288]

You know that's a well articulated awesome OPINION.

Too bad it's not based on any actual historical facts and is really just a hypothetical.

I can come up with plenty of those too, and no one will care to hear them.

Hypotheticals such as the NCAA never harming their cash cow.

 

[rickyzwalters]

Hypotheticals such as the NCAA never harming their cash cow.

Clearly I never said that. Nice try though.

The essence of what I said was that the NCAA does NOT want to punish the bluebloods because they are the NCAA's cash cow. They will of course if the evidence is overwhelming and gives them no other choice.

Tell me, with all the different situations that the NCAA could have taken and punished UNC, Duke, KU or UK (so many have been brought up in this thread alone), when was the last time the NCAA actually punished (probation, loss of scholarships, vacated wins) one of them? I honestly can't remember the last time - has to have been at least 10-15 years ago.

Probably 12 years ago KU when Roy was leaving KU for UNC he gave $100 gifts to the graduating seniors. Now that was truly punishment worthy - loss of a couple scholarships and a 3 year probation. Stupid NCAA.

How the NCAA is currently handling UNC is exhibit A of how they want avoid going after Bluebloods.

 

[McThick]

Sorry dude but you set up the example that Self told her to cooperate even though he doesn't want her to do that. Do I want Cal to tell someone to do something which he doesn't want to happen????

Why can't we get back to the truth? Why can't Self be open and honest? Why can't he tell her to tell the truth and mean it or do you believe he has no integrity?

I want Cal to be honest and open with the truth. But, as I said, I want the NCAA to deal with it fairly and justly.

The NCAA doesn't have to vacate games for violations of amateur status. In the case of Maggette, they exonerated both Duke and Maggette. In all honesty, if mom comes clean in this case and it is bad, I strongly suspect the NCAA will not punish KU because the player was supended. But, of course, if they apply strict liability, the season is vacated.

Our discussion on this and your fear of the truth is proof that the NCAA isn't consistent or fair and will punish one program and not another. Otherwise, why do you not want the truth to come out expecting to receive the SAME treatment given to Duke??????? That is the question I want you to answer....

Why do UK fans, who are quick to point out that the NCAA has cleared Cal of any knowledge or wrong doings, in both cases, continue to think the NCAA is out to get Cal? Makes no sense. And these same fans want Self punished, even though he had no knowledge that Cliff's mom took out a loan.

 

[beaker23288]

Clearly I never said that. Nice try though.

The essence of what I said was that the NCAA does NOT want to punish the bluebloods. They will of course if the evidence gives them no other choice.

Tell me, with all the different situations that the NCAA could have taken and punished UNC, Duke, KU or UK (so many have been brought up in this thread alone), when was the last time the NCAA actually punished one of them?

How the NCAA is currently handling UNC is exhibit A.

Lol, well I said that, not you, so it's more of a point I was trying to make, which you reinforced by saying UK, KU, UNC, and Duke rarely, if ever, get punished. The NCAA doesn't want their marquee names on the sidelines during March. And I agree with you on that wholeheartedly.

But the point I was trying to make, and you can say well there's no historical facts to back this up and nice try etc, but the NCAA will never vacate a season of the team that won the championship. It's bad business. Rose would've been swept under the rug if Memphis won. Like you said exhibit A - UNC, they aren't going to be forced to hand over their '93 '05 & '09 banners.

 

[rickyzwalters]

I think a UNC banner or two could come down, but the evidence would have to be of the smoking gun variety and overwhelming.

I agree with the suggestion it's highly unlikely to happen though.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Okay dude,

EVERY single player and program was punished EXCEPT for Maggette/Duke. Admittedly, there was one complication and that is that Maggette had left for the NBA when it was determined that he had taken money.

BUT, and it is a big BUT, the NCAA exonerated Maggette and Duke. This was AFTER Maggette initially refused to cooperate and then lied and finally told the truth when the evidence came out in the federal investigation.

The point is that BY RULE as confirmed by NCAA officials, Duke should have been punished but not only did the NCAA not punish them but they also exonerated Maggette and Duke.

Now explain to me WHY the NCAA had to punish Memphis if they don't even follow their own guidelines to punish Duke? I will hang up and listen...

Well for one, Rose was not a college student. He did not meet qualifications to be admitted to Memphis.

So, are you saying that those other players were penalized during their resulting college careers, but couldn't punish Maggette because he'd already left college? Are you saying they penalized their programs for them taking money? Did they vacate any of the games before they found out about the payments? These are things you'd like to answer if you were going to show they treated the others unfairly.