So where does the NCAA stand on the Cliff Alexander

[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.

 

[saxonburgcat]

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.

Obviously, I cannot speak for other fans.

But, speaking for myself, I never said I want Self punished if he is innocent. I only want the NCAA to be consistent and fair.

The bottomline is that Cal has never been shown to have cheated. The NCAA knows to be careful in making accusations against coaches after the the Tark debacle. But, we also know the NCAA targets programs and there is strong evidence that we have been targeted (Kanter, Bledsoe, Noel to name a few).

Having said that, the NCAA only recently passed the rule that holds the HC accountable for wrongdoing. Under current rules, Self could be punished even if he didn't know what was going on.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

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

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.

Are you sure about that? That is NOT what is being written about his situation. Here you go:

linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25bledsoe.html?_r=0

I ready the Wainstein report, and nowhere does it implicate any men's bb coaches of any wrongdoing. I know, you're going to say "well Wainstein wasn't allowed to really write the report he wanted because UNC wouldn't allow it, just look at those attached emails". So, we'll probably not make it very far.

 

[saxonburgcat]

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.

Are you deliberately missing the point? None of the Piggie players was a college student when they took illegal payments. Every player faced a suspension in college EXCEPT Maggette. They were ALL deemed guilty and punished.

ONE player was deemed to be exonerated even though he took money and lied about it. That player went to Duke.

ONLY a complete idiot would not see the inconsistency.

 

[saxonburgcat]

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.

What more could you ask for? 20 years of blatant cheating and almost an entire roster of AFAM majors with one of them blowing the whistle and revealing his transcript. We have whistle blowers, transcripts, emails, and confessions. The DA's I worked with when I was a state cop would have had a slam dunk case with that kind of evidence.

 

[Lumpy 2]

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.

I don't think Self or Kansas should be punished in either the Arthur or Alexander cases and I don't think Memphis should have been punished for Rose. In all 3 cases the schools didn't know any violations had occurred. The difference is that Memphis was punished because Rose refused to cooperate in the investigation, Kansas was not even though the NCAA knew Arthur's grades were changed and now a Kansas fan is saying they shouldn't be punished if those connected to the Alexander case refuse to cooperate.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Are you deliberately missing the point? None of the Piggie players was a college student when they took illegal payments. Every player faced a suspension in college EXCEPT Maggette. They were ALL deemed guilty and punished.

ONE player was deemed to be exonerated even though he took money and lied about it. That player went to Duke.

ONLY a complete idiot would not see the inconsistency.

What do you mean by "exonerated"? Can you provide a link after you give your definition? Also, are you saying that if Maggette had of still been in college then he would not have been punished? If so, is this something you have proof of, or just your speculation?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

I don't think Self or Kansas should be punished in either the Arthur or Alexander cases and I don't think Memphis should have been punished for Rose. In all 3 cases the schools didn't know any violations had occurred. The difference is that Memphis was punished because Rose refused to cooperate in the investigation, Kansas was not even though the NCAA knew Arthur's grades were changed and now a Kansas fan is saying they shouldn't be punished if those connected to the Alexander case refuse to cooperate.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The difference is because the ETS threw out his score. If that had not happened then the NCAA would not have had anything to punish them for...other than vacating the games after early December for the brother getting impermissible benefits.

 

[Lumpy 2]

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.

I don't think Self or Kansas should be punished in either the Arthur or Alexander cases and I don't think Memphis should have been punished for Rose. In all 3 cases the schools didn't know any violations had occurred. The difference is that Memphis was punished because Rose refused to cooperate in the investigation, Kansas was not even though the NCAA knew Arthur's grades were changed and now a Kansas fan is saying they shouldn't be punished if those connected to the Alexander case refuse to cooperate.

Are you sure about that? That is NOT what is being written about his situation. Here you go:

linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25bledsoe.html?_r=0

I ready the Wainstein report, and nowhere does it implicate any men's bb coaches of any wrongdoing. I know, you're going to say "well Wainstein wasn't allowed to really write the report he wanted because UNC wouldn't allow it, just look at those attached emails". So, we'll probably not make it very far.

Thanks for the link Bobby. I had been looking for something that proved there was no evidence against Bledsoe. That article said they couldn't determine that grades were changed. It also said the NCAA went to 3 schools trying to prove wrongdoing but found no evidence. With Arthur, they allowed the school district to do the investigation and when they said they didn't find any irregularities, the NCAA concluded the investigation. I can't find anything that says they even sent an investigator to Dallas in the Arthur case.

If you read the Wainstein Report you obviously missed the email of Walden asking Crowder to get a player switched into an AFAM class because he was about to fail another class and needed to change. Walden also admitted to Wainstein that he knew Crowder was grading papers for basketball players. Roy also changed his story, first saying he didn't know about his players clustering in AFAM then telling Wainstein he asked an assistant coach to not let so many players major in AFAM because he was worried about the clustering.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

I don't think Self or Kansas should be punished in either the Arthur or Alexander cases and I don't think Memphis should have been punished for Rose. In all 3 cases the schools didn't know any violations had occurred. The difference is that Memphis was punished because Rose refused to cooperate in the investigation, Kansas was not even though the NCAA knew Arthur's grades were changed and now a Kansas fan is saying they shouldn't be punished if those connected to the Alexander case refuse to cooperate.

Thanks for the link Bobby. I had been looking for something that proved there was no evidence against Bledsoe. That article said they couldn't determine that grades were changed. It also said the NCAA went to 3 schools trying to prove wrongdoing but found no evidence. With Arthur, they allowed the school district to do the investigation and when they said they didn't find any irregularities, the NCAA concluded the investigation. I can't find anything that says they even sent an investigator to Dallas in the Arthur case.

If you read the Wainstein Report you obviously missed the email of Walden asking Crowder to get a player switched into an AFAM class because he was about to fail another class and needed to change. Walden also admitted to Wainstein that he knew Crowder was grading papers for basketball players. Roy also changed his story, first saying he didn't know about his players clustering in AFAM then telling Wainstein he asked an assistant coach to not let so many players major in AFAM because he was worried about the clustering.

Wow, ok, so you didn't even read the article. First paragraph:

"An independent investigation into the improbable academic makeover of Eric Bledsoe, which allowed him to qualify for a scholarship at Kentucky, has concluded that the reasons for a grade change that assured him eligibility are “not credible.”"

 

[Lumpy 2]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The difference is because the ETS threw out his score. If that had not happened then the NCAA would not have had anything to punish them for...other than vacating the games after early December for the brother getting impermissible benefits.

Read the report. The reason the ETS threw out the score was because Rose refused to cooperate. Maybe you can provide a link where the ETS said they had proof that Rose didn't take the test.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Read the report. The reason the ETS threw out the score was because Rose refused to cooperate. Maybe you can provide a link where the ETS said they had proof that Rose didn't take the test.

Didn't say they said they had proof, doesn't matter, they threw out his score for whatever reason they gave, don't care, and hence he no longer had the requirements Memphis needed to be accepted. THEN, and only then, did the NCAA force them to vacate those games he played in (once again, ignoring the brother's situation). If you want to be mad at anyone you should stop looking at the NCAA and start looking at the ETS. They said they had nothing against him...but that all changed when the ETS concluded their investigation. I guess you should also be upset with Memphis, as they played him after being warned by the the NCAA that other people were looking into the situation.

Oh, yeah, the NCAA does not encompass the ETS. They're separate organizations.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Wow, ok, so you didn't even read the article. First paragraph:

"An independent investigation into the improbable academic makeover of Eric Bledsoe, which allowed him to qualify for a scholarship at Kentucky, has concluded that the reasons for a grade change that assured him eligibility are “not credible.”"

Maybe you should have read the rest of the article. Your quote is from Pete Thamel. Here's one with credibility; "Birmingham Schools Superintendent Craig Witherspoon said in a telephone interview that the grade in question would not be changed. He said that although there was no evidence that Bledsoe did the makeup work to justify the grade change, there was no hard evidence that he did not do it."

 

[Lumpy 2]

Didn't say they said they had proof, doesn't matter, they threw out his score for whatever reason they gave, don't care, and hence he no longer had the requirements Memphis needed to be accepted. THEN, and only then, did the NCAA force them to vacate those games he played in (once again, ignoring the brother's situation). If you want to be mad at anyone you should stop looking at the NCAA and start looking at the ETS. They said they had nothing against him...but that all changed when the ETS concluded their investigation. I guess you should also be upset with Memphis, as they played him after being warned by the the NCAA that other people were looking into the situation.

Oh, yeah, the NCAA does not encompass the ETS. They're separate organizations.

You argue that UNC shouldn't be punished without more proof than the fact that a former player admitted he was kept eligible through academic fraud, a report detailing 20 years of cheating and the admission by the school that it was both an academic and an athletic problem. Now you say it doesn't matter whether the ETS had a valid reason for throwing out Rose's test score and you don't care. It sounds like you don't care if the NCAA doesn't treat every school fairly, only that your school gets off with as little punishment as possible.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Maybe you should have read the rest of the article. Your quote is from Pete Thamel. Here's one with credibility; "Birmingham Schools Superintendent Craig Witherspoon said in a telephone interview that the grade in question would not be changed. He said that although there was no evidence that Bledsoe did the makeup work to justify the grade change, there was no hard evidence that he did not do it."

Woah, wait, you sound like the UNC fans.

If you don't like Pete's rereading of the report, you can read the report here:

http://media.al.com/bn/other/Bledsoe Report.pdf

Scroll down to bottom of page three.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

You argue that UNC shouldn't be punished without more proof than the fact that a former player admitted he was kept eligible through academic fraud, a report detailing 20 years of cheating and the admission by the school that it was both an academic and an athletic problem. Now you say it doesn't matter whether the ETS had a valid reason for throwing out Rose's test score and you don't care. It sounds like you don't care if the NCAA doesn't treat every school fairly, only that your school gets off with as little punishment as possible.

I said I don't care, because I don't care about the case. But, I can read, and I did read and that's why I'm not saying the NCAA unfairly punished Memphis.

 

[saxonburgcat]

What do you mean by "exonerated"? Can you provide a link after you give your definition? Also, are you saying that if Maggette had of still been in college then he would not have been punished? If so, is this something you have proof of, or just your speculation?

Good grief! How could he be punished in college if the NCAA cleared him completely?

I don't need to provide a link because it is quoted in numerous articles. The NCAA specifically said that neither Duke nor Maggette "knew or should have known" that he committted a violation.

Since that was NOT applied to any other Piggie player and every one of them was punished by being suspended from games, I think the word "exonerated" applies to Duke and Maggette.

Exonerated means to absolved from blame or fault. Duke was absolved and Maggette was absolved on the same basis.

BTW, the NCAA never made their ruling public until their hand was forced by Dan Wetzel who wrote a piece on the scandal. The VERY next day, the NCAA came out with this ridculous ruling.

It isn't hard to see major issues with the NCAA in these cases. I am fairly sure that it was Parrish who wrote an article comparing Maggette to Rose. Reading it makes my head hurt.

 

[JPScott]

BTW, the NCAA never made their ruling public until their hand was forced by a sports writer who wrote a piece on the scandal. The VERY next day, the NCAA came out with this ridculous ruling.

It was Dan Wetzel. The article is still online below.

Yahoo! Article: Does the NCAA play favorites

As mentioned, the NCAA only publicly commented on the case after this article, in what was described as a bizarre news conference. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the NCAA probably would never have commented on it and just hoped the whole thing was forgotten, if their hand wasn't forced by the media.

 

[Old_Red]

What semester did McCants say he cheated during?

You are the most obnoxious jerk I've ever seen. You have to be taking a legitimate class load to be eligible to play NCAA basketball. That includes a minimum number of classes. You cling to the lie that those classes he took in the spring were legitimate. They were not so he played without taking any legitimate classes in the spring. Your college was running a very good pro team that didn't have to take classes and, of course, you are ok with it. You back a cheating university and therefore should never comment on the cheating occurring at any other school. UNC**** is the biggest farce of NCAA college athletics. You are a complete joke with absolutely no morals at all. UNC**** is pathetic and so are you.

 

[docholiday51]

Red,If Custer had defended his position at Little Bighorn as well as Bobby and Ricky have defended their's in this thread he might have won.......on second thought defending UNC,Duke and the NCAA here will end the same way.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Good grief! How could he be punished in college if the NCAA cleared him completely?

I don't need to provide a link because it is quoted in numerous articles. The NCAA specifically said that neither Duke nor Maggette "knew or should have known" that he committted a violation.

Since that was NOT applied to any other Piggie player and every one of them was punished by being suspended from games, I think the word "exonerated" applies to Duke and Maggette.

Exonerated means to absolved from blame or fault. Duke was absolved and Maggette was absolved on the same basis.

BTW, the NCAA never made their ruling public until their hand was forced by Dan Wetzel who wrote a piece on the scandal. The VERY next day, the NCAA came out with this ridculous ruling.

It isn't hard to see major issues with the NCAA in these cases. I am fairly sure that it was Parrish who wrote an article comparing Maggette to Rose. Reading it makes my head hurt.

I cannot find one article that says Maggette was exonerated. Please give us a link. Are you assuming not punishing = exonerated? Also, the article states that the difference in the Crudup and Camby case is that they took money and other goods while enrolled in college. So, what would be interesting is if there have been players who took money before enrolling, only to be found out afterwards and the NCAA forced the school to vacate games. We know that the NCAA has ruled players ineligible after they found out about a player taking impermissible gifts in high school, but have they vacated any games that the player had already played in? That would be a closer-to apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[saxonburgcat]

I cannot find one article that says Maggette was exonerated. Please give us a link. Are you assuming not punishing = exonerated? Also, the article states that the difference in the Crudup and Camby case is that they took money and other goods while enrolled in college. So, what would be interesting is if there have been players who took money before enrolling, only to be found out afterwards and the NCAA forced the school to vacate games. We know that the NCAA has ruled players ineligible after they found out about a player taking impermissible gifts in high school, but have they vacated any games that the player had already played in? That would be a closer-to apples-to-apples comparison.

No. I am assuming that when the NCAA said that Maggette "did not know nor should have known" that was his being exonerated.

The same identical language was used of Duke University. I contend that they were also exonerated.

It doesn't take a college grad to understand this....If you are contending that the NCAA found Maggette guilty of NCAA violations, show me the NCAA record of that violation.

And, if Maggette was guilty, apparently Duke was too. Where is that violation recorded or do you want to now argue that is a national secret?

In the article quoted by JPS, the NCAA says that Duke would be punished if the charges were deemed to be true. What was that punishment?

 

[saxonburgcat]

Red,If Custer had defended his position at Little Bighorn as well as Bobby and Ricky have defended their's in this thread he might have won.......on second thought defending UNC,Duke and the NCAA here will end the same way.

If Custer had defended his position the way they have, Custer would have been telling his men, "I made a mistake but if we dig some deep holes and hide in them, maybe the Indians will not see us and go after Reno."

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

No. I am assuming that when the NCAA said that Maggette "did not know nor should have known" that was his being exonerated.

The same identical language was used of Duke University. I contend that they were also exonerated.

It doesn't take a college grad to understand this....If you are contending that the NCAA found Maggette guilty of NCAA violations, show me the NCAA record of that violation.

And, if Maggette was guilty, apparently Duke was too. Where is that violation recorded or do you want to now argue that is a national secret?

In the article quoted by JPS, the NCAA says that Duke would be punished if the charges were deemed to be true. What was that punishment?

How about we start were I asked, link me to something that says tha NCAA cleared Maggette of wrongdoing. We can go from there.

 

[kybassfan]

How about we start were I asked, link me to something that says tha NCAA cleared Maggette of wrongdoing. We can go from there.

Bobbi, you really did go to UNC.

www.google.com

No charge.

 

[twocoach]

investigation? He was ineligible (or KU was told best to sit him). He and his mother were obviously guilty of taking out a loan and getting significant cash before last season began, which made him ineligible in the 28 games he played. They try to blame it all on his mom, which doesn't wash. Cliff was 18 at the time of the loan based on his future earnings......he had to sign the loan. Anyone with an 18 yr old knows you cannot do shat without their signature.
Will the NCAA enforce this and make them vacate 28 games? Self's beloved Big 12 streak is a joke after this.

He wasn't ineligible for games he played in. That's not how the impermissible benefits violation works. If he was found guilty of receiving impermissible benefits then he would face the standard penalty for it based on how much the amount was:

1) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $100 or less = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 10 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 10% of the number of games to be played by team)
2) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $101-$300 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 20 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 20% of the number of games to be played by team)
3) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $301-$500 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 30 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 30% of the number of games to be played by team)
4) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $501-$1000 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 50 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 50% of the number of games to be played by team)
5) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at greater than $1000 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a minimum withholding condition should be sit-a-season, charge-a-season up to permanent ineligibility.

Basically, Cliff would have to repay the amount of the loan and, assuming that the loan was more than $1,000, he would have to sit out a full season. Kansas would not forfeit any games.

 

[twocoach]

That is a complete load of garbage.

Rose's brother paid for 90% of the travel/board expenses he incurred. A secretary forgot to charge his credit card on one trip (maybe 2). This wasn't something that was hush hush trying to keep it quiet. It was a billing error.

The NCAA had plenty of choices on how to handle the Cancelled ETS (ACT) score. They chose to retroactively declare Rose ineligible. Again, I find this line of thinking to be completely obtuse. The cancelled score should have made Rose ineligible for the 2009 season and beyond (at least until he could receive a qualifying score). The NCAA didn't (and couldn't) do this because Rose had already forfeited his eligibility by turning pro.

Strict Liability is either the governing standard for violations and enforcement, or it was just concocted to try and get at Calipari. Frankly, I don't believe we will ever see it used again.

The ncaa has different penalties for different rule violations. They don't use the same penalty for different violations. They have a clearly defined penalty for a player or family member of a player receiving impermissible benefits and it does not include being declared ineligible. Sorry, but the Rose case at Memphis has NOTHING to do with the Alexander case at Kansas. They are violations of two different rules.

 

[twocoach]

Cliff's mom has yet to meet with the NCAA or offered any explanation. Since the NCAA can't force her to its kind of a stalemate.

All the public statements coming from KU have been for the family to cooperate with the NCAA inquiry. Unless someone starts talking its just going to fade away.

There is no reason for Cliff's family to ever speak to the ncaa. Cliff's family wanted Cliff to come back for another season to try to raise his draft stock but they wouldn't lessen the punishment he would face for their stupidity. Once that was set then there was no reason for them to talk to them any further. Why be forced to pay back the loan amount (and still be on the hook to pay back the actual loan) plus have Cliff be ruled to sit out the entire season. Since he couldn't return to college ball to try to raise his draft status he went to the NBA Draft and it's done.

This has never had anything to do with Kansas. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the ncaa rules and how to use google should be able to figure that out.

 

[gossie21]

The ncaa has different penalties for different rule violations. They don't use the same penalty for different violations. They have a clearly defined penalty for a player or family member of a player receiving impermissible benefits and it does not include being declared ineligible. Sorry, but the Rose case at Memphis has NOTHING to do with the Alexander case at Kansas. They are violations of two different rules.

Believe me I understand that the NCAA has different rules when applied to different schools. That has always been clear.

 

[twocoach]

Believe me I understand that the NCAA has different rules when applied to different schools. That has always been clear.

Did the ncaa look into Doron Lamb's tweets about getting impermissible benefits? Or the Bledsoe allegations? OK, then. Let's not hear Kentucky fans boo hoo about being picked on. The ncaa has been consistent in handling cases of impermissible benefits. Kansas is and was in no danger of having to forfeit games.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Bobbi, you really did go to UNC.

www.google.com

No charge.

Can you find any article that says the NCAA cleared Maggette

 

[Bryce21]

Can you find any article that says the NCAA cleared Maggette

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/02/sports/sp-ncaa2

"After a lengthy investigation, we came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Maggette knew or should have known, and we firmly believe that the institution did not know and should not have known. Consequently, we have notified the institution that there will be no action by the NCAA."

 

[Lumpy 2]

He wasn't ineligible for games he played in. That's not how the impermissible benefits violation works. If he was found guilty of receiving impermissible benefits then he would face the standard penalty for it based on how much the amount was:

1) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $100 or less = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 10 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 10% of the number of games to be played by team)
2) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $101-$300 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 20 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 20% of the number of games to be played by team)
3) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $301-$500 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 30 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 30% of the number of games to be played by team)
4) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at $501-$1000 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a 50 percent withholding
condition (sit out games = 50% of the number of games to be played by team)
5) athlete or family member accepted benefits valued at greater than $1000 = Eligibility reinstated based on repayment of value of the impermissible benefits received and a minimum withholding condition should be sit-a-season, charge-a-season up to permanent ineligibility.

Basically, Cliff would have to repay the amount of the loan and, assuming that the loan was more than $1,000, he would have to sit out a full season. Kansas would not forfeit any games.

It appears that the NCAA didn't follow their own guidelines in the case of Josh Selby. Selby was found to have taken $5,757.68 in impermissible benefits before enrolling at Kansas. The NCAA required him to sit out 9 games, not the entire season as you outlined in #5 in your post.

What ever happened in the Ben McLemore case? McLemore's AAU coach claimed that McLemore's advisor, Rodney Blackstock paid him and McLemore's cousin thousands of dollars to steer McLemore toward certain agents and financial advisors. Shortly after McLemore declared for the draft, Blackstock became a certified agent and McLemore switched from the agency who was representing him and became Blackstock's first client. What was the NCAA's ruling in that case?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/02/sports/sp-ncaa2

"After a lengthy investigation, we came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Maggette knew or should have known, and we firmly believe that the institution did not know and should not have known. Consequently, we have notified the institution that there will be no action by the NCAA."

Great, thanks! According to the NCAA:

"The standard for that is whether either the institution knew or should have known that Maggette was ineligible, or if Maggette himself knew that -- or should have known that he was ineligible,"

So, since he had not received any impermissible benefits after enrolling at Duke, Duke could not be held responsible for knowing. Hence it all came down to whether or not Maggette himself knew it was wrong. Imo, he knew it was wrong, but the NCAA could not prove it. Thus, Duke was cleared of any wrongdoing.

However, it still does not say that Maggette was cleared of any/all wrongdoing, only that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. That is a HUGE difference. In particular, if he was cleared of any wrongdoing then he would've still been eligible after this came to light (assuming he was still in college).

 

[rickyzwalters]

It appears that the NCAA didn't follow their own guidelines in the case of Josh Selby. Selby was found to have taken $5,757.68 in impermissible benefits before enrolling at Kansas. The NCAA required him to sit out 9 games, not the entire season as you outlined in #5 in your post.

What ever happened in the Ben McLemore case? McLemore's AAU coach claimed that McLemore's advisor, Rodney Blackstock paid him and McLemore's cousin thousands of dollars to steer McLemore toward certain agents and financial advisors. Shortly after McLemore declared for the draft, Blackstock became a certified agent and McLemore switched from the agency who was representing him and became Blackstock's first client. What was the NCAA's ruling in that case?

Lumpy,

I know I can feel safer and sleep at night knowing you are tracking every potential KU violation and infraction.

The thread was started with "what has happened with Alexander" and has now spiraled downward into lets see if we can rehash everything about Arthur, Selby, and McLemore.

Once you got the info about Cliff that you apparently didn't like you turned your eye of justice and outrage to situations that happened years ago and are closed matters.

Anyone else you want to go back and add into your protection of CBB from the all corrupt KU Jayhawks?

Or you could go after the other bluebloods infractions at Duke and UNC.

Oh sorry, we've already done that in this thread.

I wonder if you have the same concern for any of UK's past misteps with recruits and eligibility issues?

 

[kybassfan]

Can you find any articles that says the NCAA cleared Maggette?

Bobbi, I gave you the place to look and now you want me to do the search? Where did you learn that behavior? I say it demonstrates lack of academic integrity.

Can you clear someone that wasn't formally charged with anything even if they admit guilt? Should a school be held accountable if they recruited a professional and does it matter if they are ignorant? Should a school be held accountable for offering fraudulent classes if such classes were required to make an athlete eligible?

Clearly you are playing on semantics. Maggette was guilty by his own admission. Duke played a professional by definition. They have wins that they earned while participating while out of compliance. I don't know that any of this is in dispute. Its quite similar to the situation at UNC where we all wait to see whether that institution will be held accountable for transgressions which are not in dispute. So what you need to google is lack of NCAA integrity and arbitrary application of its own rules. And as bonus work, whether a given institution demonstrates integrity and sportsmanship regarding wins and accolades that they clearly didn't earn. The jury is in on Duke. We know the answers there. Where is the integrity with UNC or is there so little that even google fails to find it?

I know this will be a completely foreign concept to you but rule compliance should be voluntary and unsolicited. I know a school that recently put a sports program on 5 year suspension due to the behavior of that program, though I'm sure this is quite beyond your comprehension. (HELL NO, google it). We aren't discussing guilt or innocence. We know that answer. The question here is justice , fitting punishment and institutional integrity.

Or are you next going to ask me to google the definition of "is".

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Bobbi, I gave you the place to look and now you want me to do the search? Where did you learn that behavior? I say it demonstrates lack of academic integrity.

Can you clear someone that wasn't formally charged with anything even if they admit guilt? Should a school be held accountable if they recruited a professional and does it matter if they are ignorant? Should a school be held accountable for offering fraudulent classes if such classes were required to make an athlete eligible?

Clearly you are playing on semantics. Maggette was guilty by his own admission. Duke played a professional by definition. They have wins that they earned while participating while out of compliance. I don't know that any of this is in dispute. Its quite similar to the situation at UNC where we all wait to see whether that institution will be held accountable for transgressions which are not in dispute. So what you need to google is lack of NCAA integrity and arbitrary application of its own rules. And as bonus work, whether a given institution demonstrates integrity and sportsmanship regarding wins and accolades that they clearly didn't earn. The jury is in on Duke. We know the answers there. Where is the integrity with UNC or is there so little that even google fails to find it?

I know this will be a completely foreign concept to you but rule compliance should be voluntary and unsolicited. I know a school that recently put a sports program on 5 year suspension due to the behavior of that program, though I'm sure this is quite beyond your comprehension. (HELL NO, google it). We aren't discussing guilt or innocence. We know that answer. The question here is justice , fitting punishment and institutional integrity.

Or are you next going to ask me to google the definition of "is".

Yes, I asked you to find any article that says the NCAA cleared him of any wrongdoing because I can't find any. That was the claim, not made by you but you did choose to join our conversation.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Lumpy,

I know I can feel safer and sleep at night knowing you are tracking every potential KU violation and infraction.

The thread was started with "what has happened with Alexander" and has now spiraled downward into lets see if we can rehash everything about Arthur, Selby, and McLemore.

Once you got the info about Cliff that you apparently didn't like you turned your eye of justice and outrage to situations that happened years ago and are closed matters.

Anyone else you want to go back and add into your protection of CBB from the all corrupt KU Jayhawks?

Or you could go after the other bluebloods infractions at Duke and UNC.

Oh sorry, we've already done that in this thread.

I wonder if you have the same concern for any of UK's past misteps with recruits and eligibility issues?

Nice deflection. Now maybe you can answer the questions. Why didn't the NCAA follow their own guidelines and require Selby to sit out the entire season or declare him permanently ineligible like they did Kanter? What was the ruling in the McLemore case?

 

[kybassfan]

Yes, I asked you to find any article that says the NCAA cleared him of any wrongdoing because I can't find any. That was the claim, not made by you but you did choose to join our conversation.

Right, I was getting tired of reading your rhetoric and watching you struggle to make an argument based on pointless semantics. Can you find an article where the NCAA pronounced him guilty or even accused him of anything? If not, he was guilty by admission, so what does that say?

 

[saxonburgcat]

How about we start were I asked, link me to something that says tha NCAA cleared Maggette of wrongdoing. We can go from there.

Great, thanks! According to the NCAA:

"The standard for that is whether either the institution knew or should have known that Maggette was ineligible, or if Maggette himself knew that -- or should have known that he was ineligible,"

So, since he had not received any impermissible benefits after enrolling at Duke, Duke could not be held responsible for knowing. Hence it all came down to whether or not Maggette himself knew it was wrong. Imo, he knew it was wrong, but the NCAA could not prove it. Thus, Duke was cleared of any wrongdoing.

However, it still does not say that Maggette was cleared of any/all wrongdoing, only that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. That is a HUGE difference. In particular, if he was cleared of any wrongdoing then he would've still been eligible after this came to light (assuming he was still in college).

That is the biggest load of crap I've read since the Martin report.

It is a FACT that Maggette took money illegally. The NCAA says Maggette was too stupid to know what he did was wrong so they decide there is NO violation, effectively clearing both Maggette and Duke.

Dude, there is NO violation. He took illegal money, lied about it and the NCAA decided he was not intelligent enough for know what he did was wrong. He could have stayed at Duke and never missed a game in 4 years because, according to the NCAA, it was not a violation if you are that dumb.

Maggette would have fit in at UNC perfectly!