So where does the NCAA stand on the Cliff Alexander

[kybassfan]

Go back and read what the NCAA stated they had to prove in order to make Duke vacate the games. Then go read your comment again. Also, were did I say Maggette didn't take money in high school? Also, still waiting for the link that says the NCAA cleared Maggette of wrongdoing?

Ok, I'm debating a child.

Any stance the NCAA may have taken wrt Maggette carries no relevance. Maggette was a professional. Duke used him. The NCAA vacated its role for oversight of infractions. Duke knowingly counts wins and accolades it earned while using a professional on its roster.

Now do you truly want to defend that? If you do, tell me why we should continue to discuss the matter in the absence of any ethical compass. I have to assume you'd say anything at this point.

Teasing aside, I expected more.

 

[Lumpy 2]

If Maggette didn't know that taking the money was wrong why did he initially lie about it when he was questioned by the NCAA before admitting it under oath in the case against Piggie? Like the other players involved, he was questioned before the season and by lying, he was allowed to play the entire season.

 

[JPScott]

Yes, I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I wrote that the NCAA didn't/couldn't prove that Maggette knew he was ineligible after accepting money from Piggie.

Per bold
Well, in the article the NCAA stated:

"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, as I mentioned, they had to show Duke was responsible, but they couldn't because he was not a member at the time, or they had to show that Maggette knew he was ineligible, went obviously they couldn't.

So basically Maggette was guilty of taking money, he then lied about it before admitting to it under oath. But the NCAA couldn't know for certain that Maggette knew it was wrong so they didn't pursue any sanctions?

You do realize that if that's the criteria that the NCAA uses, then absolutely NO ONE can ever be found to have committed any infraction ever. Because obviously the NCAA can't know with 100% certainty whether the person knew it was wrong.

The level of stupidity and gross ignorance in this thread is incredible.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Ok, I'm debating a child.

Any stance the NCAA may have taken wrt Maggette carries no relevance. Maggette was a professional. Duke used him. The NCAA vacated its role for oversight of infractions. Duke knowingly counts wins and accolades it earned while using a professional on its roster.

Now do you truly want to defend that? If you do, tell me why we should continue to discuss the matter in the absence of any ethical compass. I have to assume you'd say anything at this point.

Teasing aside, I expected more.

Ok then, tell it to me like I'm a child, how was the NCAA acting inconsistently in the Maggette case? Please, give mean example of another player who took money in high school only and the team was forced to vacate games after-the-fact. I'm sure there are some examples, according to those around here it happens all the time. Seriously though, let's compare apples to apples and show how the NCAA protected Duke but hammered another school for the same thing.

Oh, I'm still waiting for any article that states the NCAA cleared Maggette of any wrongdoing. I've asked for this all day, after it was repeated over and over again that they did.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

So basically Maggette was guilty of taking money, he then lied about it before admitting to it under oath. But the NCAA couldn't know for certain that Maggette knew it was wrong so they didn't pursue any sanctions?

You do realize that if that's the criteria that the NCAA uses, then absolutely NO ONE can ever be found to have committed any infraction ever. Because obviously the NCAA can't know with 100% certainty whether the person knew it was wrong.

The level of stupidity and gross ignorance in this thread is incredible.

Yep, that is why they get the school, saying it was their job to know the player was ineligible. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand this. They hit the school for playing players which they should've known were ineligible and then punish the player with ineligibility during their future careers. This was clear from the article linked above. You like to talk about other cases, so, as I offered to the other poster, find another similar case so we can discuss the inconsistencies in carrying of rules by the NCAA.

 

[KopiKat]

Ok then, tell it to me like I'm a child, how was the NCAA acting inconsistently in the Maggette case? Please, give mean example of another player who took money in high school only and the team was forced to vacate games after-the-fact. I'm sure there are some examples, according to those around here it happens all the time. Seriously though, let's compare apples to apples and show how the NCAA protected Duke but hammered another school for the same thing.

Oh, I'm still waiting for any article that states the NCAA cleared Maggette of any wrongdoing. I've asked for this all day, after it was repeated over and over again that they did.

So we should have just played Kanter to begin with and had no worry about having games forfeited? Oh wait, the NCAA would have told us that we "should have known" because they sent their legion of investigators to Istanbul (and again to Noel's prep school, etc.) with finding results aplenty whereas, compared to anybody recruited by Duke, UNC, KU, the NCAA never sends anybody to do any pre-emptive fact finding so the convenience of ignorance is always available to them. Have I got that right? At least from the standpoint of how it's worked out, not necessarily of how it was "intended" (wink, wink).

 

[Fancatstik]

Well I don't know if I'm a minority here but I could care less about all this recruit/NCAA crapola. I just like to watch good basketball.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

So we should have just played Kanter to begin with and had no worry about having games forfeited? Oh wait, the NCAA would have told us that we "should have known" because they sent their legion of investigators to Istanbul (and again to Noel's prep school, etc.) with finding results aplenty whereas, compared to anybody recruited by Duke, UNC, KU, the NCAA never sends anybody to do any pre-emptive fact finding so the convenience of ignorance is always available to them. Have I got that right? At least from the standpoint of how it's worked out, not necessarily of how it was "intended" (wink, wink).

Is this supposed to be a Maggette-like case?

 

[KopiKat]

Is this supposed to be a Maggette-like case?

example of player who took money in high school. Kanter accepted money while in high school to pay for expenses when traveling with a Turkish basketball team. Unless you've been living on another planet since John Calipari has been coaching in Lexington then you knew this already.

"like" not "identical". Seems that your comparative requirements fluctuate depending on whether you find the content supportive or otherwise.

 

[kybassfan]

Ok then, tell it to me like I'm a child, how was the NCAA acting inconsistently in the Maggette case? Please, give mean example of another player who took money in high school only and the team was forced to vacate games after-the-fact. I'm sure there are some examples, according to those around here it happens all the time. Seriously though, let's compare apples to apples and show how the NCAA protected Duke but hammered another school for the same thing.

Oh, I'm still waiting for any article that states the NCAA cleared Maggette of any wrongdoing. I've asked for this all day, after it was repeated over and over again that they did.

Are you really that thick son? This has nothing to do with the NCAA. Why didn't Duke self impose after they realized they were cheating, whether through ignorance or premeditation? Certainly they fail the measure of beyond reproach.

And I never made the statement that the NCAA cleared him of anything. Frankly, I think you are asking a stupid question to avoid the issue. It's called deflection. When did the NCAA actually accuse him of anything to be cleared of? He admitted guilt and I see no evidence they did anything or hardly acknowledged it in any formal fashion. Now which institution benefitted from that inaction?

The NCAA's track record against individuals in court is poor. Maggette likely presented a high liability risk to them. Can you imagine an attorney advising inaction? Better to cut your losses and let Duke skate than get tangled up in a mess and potentially suffer some court imposed penalty.

I bet that advice has popped up again in the ACC recently.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

example of player who took money in high school. Kanter accepted money while in high school to pay for expenses when traveling with a Turkish basketball team. Unless you've been living on another planet since John Calipari has been coaching in Lexington then you knew this already.

"like" not "identical". Seems that your comparative requirements fluctuate depending on whether you find the content supportive or otherwise.

This is not comparable at all, the NCAA found out about Kanter getting paid BEFORE he arrived. Hence informed him he was ineligible. Just like they would have with Maggette. The question is were there any players who accepted money in high school, the NCAA found out later on, and then forced the team to vacate games played?

 

[martinsm30]

Are you really that thick son? This has nothing to do with the NCAA. Why didn't Duke self impose after they realized they were cheating, whether through ignorance or premeditation? Certainly they fail the measure of beyond reproach.

And I never made the statement that the NCAA cleared him of anything. Frankly, I think you are asking a stupid question to avoid the issue. It's called deflection. When did the NCAA actually accuse him of anything to be cleared of? He admitted guilt and I see no evidence they did anything or hardly acknowledged it in any formal fashion. Now which institution benefitted from that inaction?

The NCAA's track record against individuals in court is poor. Maggette likely presented a high liability risk to them. Can you imagine an attorney advising inaction? Better to cut your losses and let Duke skate than get tangled up in a mess and potentially suffer some court imposed penalty.

I bet that advice has popped up again in the ACC recently.

The ACC commissioner is John Swofford. He is a former UNC*** AD. He was AD during 1980-1997. UNC*** admitted there were fake classes in 1993 and beyond. The ACC commissioner will not allow the ACC to punish UNC*** because he is as guilty as anyone else in the corrupt scheme.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Are you really that thick son? This has nothing to do with the NCAA. Why didn't Duke self impose after they realized they were cheating, whether through ignorance or premeditation? Certainly they fail the measure of beyond reproach.

And I never made the statement that the NCAA cleared him of anything. Frankly, I think you are asking a stupid question to avoid the issue. It's called deflection. When did the NCAA actually accuse him of anything to be cleared of? He admitted guilt and I see no evidence they did anything or hardly acknowledged it in any formal fashion. Now which institution benefitted from that inaction?

The NCAA's track record against individuals in court is poor. Maggette likely presented a high liability risk to them. Can you imagine an attorney advising inaction? Better to cut your losses and let Duke skate than get tangled up in a mess and potentially suffer some court imposed penalty.

I bet that advice has popped up again in the ACC recently.

Ok, it's obvious we'll never get past step 1. Thanks for the chat.

 

[saxonburgcat]

This debate is the exact crap going on at UNC as Bradley Bethel is doing his best to produce a documentary on the scandal (similar to the one done at PSU). I think we are getting some insight into how UNC will be defended in that film.

But, as Jay Smith has basically determined, Bethel has mental issues. If you have seen the one done in the PSU case, you would say that the guy who did that one also has mental issues as well.

Just an observation of what is really going on beyond this forum...

 

[saxonburgcat]

So basically Maggette was guilty of taking money, he then lied about it before admitting to it under oath. But the NCAA couldn't know for certain that Maggette knew it was wrong so they didn't pursue any sanctions?

You do realize that if that's the criteria that the NCAA uses, then absolutely NO ONE can ever be found to have committed any infraction ever. Because obviously the NCAA can't know with 100% certainty whether the person knew it was wrong.

The level of stupidity and gross ignorance in this thread is incredible.

The missing piece in the Maggette scandal is the fact that all schools are required to explain compliance to athletes. So, it was Duke's responsibility to explain that taking money from an AAU coach could be a violation. Based on that fact, Duke and/or Maggette should have known.

And, From the time Piggie was first accused of wrongdoing, every school that had a Piggie player had to sit down with those players and find out if they were involved.

Based on those facts, even Duke should have been held accountable. At the very least, if Duke did what they are required to do, Maggette should have known.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

The missing piece in the Maggette scandal is the fact that all schools are required to explain compliance to athletes. So, it was Duke's responsibility to explain that taking money from an AAU coach could be a violation. Based on that fact, Duke and/or Maggette should have known.

And, From the time Piggie was first accused of wrongdoing, every school that had a Piggie player had to sit down with those players and find out if they were involved.

Based on those facts, even Duke should have been held accountable. At the very least, if Duke did what they are required to do, Maggette should have known.

Maggette was NOT a Duke student when he accepted the money. I seriously doubt Duke, or any other school, sends it compliance office around talking to high school players -- it's probably a violation. Those things are most likely taken care of during orientation, or sometime after that.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Maggette was NOT a Duke student when he accepted the money. I seriously doubt Duke, or any other school, sends it compliance office around talking to high school players -- it's probably a violation. Those things are most likely taken care of during orientation, or sometime after that.

Do you intentionally misread EVERYTHING on this board? I never said that the compliance officer went around talking to HS players. I guess the reason that you don't know how compliance works is because UNC had virtually none. The pic that was posted on this forum with the players sleeping thru the complaince meeting was classic.

Duke has the responsibility to explain what is not allowed to the players. Then, the players are responsible to report if they had any violations. How in the world could Maggette not know taking money was a violation when it was the obligation of Duke to explain that to him?

 

[docholiday51]

Did UNC cheat for two decades,did Duke and KU get treated differently than 98% of other colleges would have under the same set of circumstances? We may as well be debating if the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west

 

[Lumpy 2]

This is not comparable at all, the NCAA found out about Kanter getting paid BEFORE he arrived. Hence informed him he was ineligible. Just like they would have with Maggette. The question is were there any players who accepted money in high school, the NCAA found out later on, and then forced the team to vacate games played?

The NCAA had questions about both Maggette and Kanter before either of them ever were enrolled in school. UK was informed that there were questions about Kanter's eligibility because he was suspected of receiving money before enrolling in school and allowing him to play would jeopardize any games in which he competed. Maggettte and 3 of his AAU teammates were also questioned by the NCAA about receiving money before enrolling in school. Kansas, UCLA and Oklahoma State, like UK, were notified there were eligibility questions involving Maggette's teammates and those players weren't allowed to compete until their eligibility questions were resolved. The NCAA somehow didn't find a problem with Maggette and Duke was never notified there were any questions about his eligibility and Maggette was allowed to play without any penalty. After they learned he had lied and Maggette had taken money and admitted he should have been ineligible the NCAA decided neither he nor Duke would be punished because Duke didn't know had taken money and Maggette didn't know it was against the rules.

You ask if there are any players who accepted money in high school, the NCAA found out later on, and then forced the team to vacate games played. Has the NCAA ever, excluding this case, found out that a team had used a player who should have been ineligible and not punished the player and the school?

 

[kybassfan]

Maggette was NOT a Duke student when he accepted the money. I seriously doubt Duke, or any other school, sends it compliance office around talking to high school players -- it's probably a violation. Those things are most likely taken care of during orientation, or sometime after that.

Neither was Kanter. I suspect the compliance office crawls all over recruits targeted by a given university.

Ever heard of the NCAA Clearing House? Actually, I think its called the NCAA Eligibility Center now. They have an amateurism questionnaire. You can google it.

 

[Katwatcher]

She will not cooperate with the ncaa and show her bank information. The ncaa is trying to use this as a reason for them to not be able to touch Kansas or Cliff. I just find this mentality funny considering this is the same reason they stripped Memphis of final four. Derrick Rose never admitted to cheating he just simply did not cooperate and they hammered the school. I guess we will see if hairpiece is now in the Duke UNCheat boat and gets away with it.

I believe if you check a little closer you will find that Memphis was stripped of final four for playing an ineligible player. The player was Derrick Rose, who was declared ineligible for not cooperating with NCAA in their investigation.

 

[saxonburgcat]

I found an old SI article on the Piggie scandal and on how JaRon Rush was hammered for taking money. The article ends with this:

The NCAA says that the inconsistencies in the penalties stem
from the fact that it's wading into uncharted waters. "We're
applying our principles to sets of facts that we've not had
before," says NCAA spokesman Wally Renfro. "There's not a whole
lot of precedent for the scenarios we've received in these
cases."

(The UNC and KU fans in this thread trying to argue that the NCAA is consistent just got blown out of the water by none other than the NCAA.)

Of course, now we have Emmert who has already said that the NCAA doesn't have to follow precendent. Again, that produces a lack of consistency.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Do you intentionally misread EVERYTHING on this board? I never said that the compliance officer went around talking to HS players. I guess the reason that you don't know how compliance works is because UNC had virtually none. The pic that was posted on this forum with the players sleeping thru the complaince meeting was classic.

Duke has the responsibility to explain what is not allowed to the players. Then, the players are responsible to report if they had any violations. How in the world could Maggette not know taking money was a violation when it was the obligation of Duke to explain that to him?

Are you sure about this?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

The NCAA had questions about both Maggette and Kanter before either of them ever were enrolled in school. UK was informed that there were questions about Kanter's eligibility because he was suspected of receiving money before enrolling in school and allowing him to play would jeopardize any games in which he competed. Maggettte and 3 of his AAU teammates were also questioned by the NCAA about receiving money before enrolling in school. Kansas, UCLA and Oklahoma State, like UK, were notified there were eligibility questions involving Maggette's teammates and those players weren't allowed to compete until their eligibility questions were resolved. The NCAA somehow didn't find a problem with Maggette and Duke was never notified there were any questions about his eligibility and Maggette was allowed to play without any penalty. After they learned he had lied and Maggette had taken money and admitted he should have been ineligible the NCAA decided neither he nor Duke would be punished because Duke didn't know had taken money and Maggette didn't know it was against the rules.

You ask if there are any players who accepted money in high school, the NCAA found out later on, and then forced the team to vacate games played. Has the NCAA ever, excluding this case, found out that a team had used a player who should have been ineligible and not punished the player and the school?

This is not true, according to the Wetzel article. Here, I'll just post his time-line, feel free to disagree:

April 1997 to August 1997: Kansas City summer basketball coach Myron Piggie makes cash payments to high school player Corey Maggette totaling $2,000. The money comes from a revenue pool that includes donations to Piggie from professional sports agents Kevin Poston and Jerome Stanley.

Nov. 12, 1997: Maggette signs a national letter of intent with Duke.

October 1998 to March 1999: Maggette averages 10.6 points per game to help Duke (37-2) reach the national championship game, which Duke loses to Connecticut.

June 30, 1999: Maggette is selected 13th in the NBA draft.

April 13, 2000: A federal grand jury in Missouri hands down an 11-count indictment of Piggie, which details the payments to Maggette (along with players at three other schools). By NCAA statutes the payments compromise Maggette's amateur status. Maggette initially denies receiving any money.

April 18, 2000: The NCAA's Jane Jankowski says: "We will have to determine if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. And, if so, what monies would have to be returned for use of an ineligible player."

May 23, 2000: Piggie works a plea bargain and admits making the payments.

July 12, 2000: Maggette comes clean and admits he received the cash from Piggie.

Spring 2001: Duke hands over all its information to the NCAA, according to John Burness, Duke's senior vice president for public affairs.

May 30, 2001: Piggie is sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for fraud.

January 2003: Piggie is paroled from federal prison in Arkansas.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Neither was Kanter. I suspect the compliance office crawls all over recruits targeted by a given university.

Ever heard of the NCAA Clearing House? Actually, I think its called the NCAA Eligibility Center now. They have an amateurism questionnaire. You can google it.

Difference was the NCAA knew about Kanter getting paid and, since he was still at UK/going to UK, could punish him. They didn't find out about Maggette until after his college career was over, no point ruling a guy ineligible who was already in the pros.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

I found an old SI article on the Piggie scandal and on how JaRon Rush was hammered for taking money. The article ends with this:

The NCAA says that the inconsistencies in the penalties stem
from the fact that it's wading into uncharted waters. "We're
applying our principles to sets of facts that we've not had
before," says NCAA spokesman Wally Renfro. "There's not a whole
lot of precedent for the scenarios we've received in these
cases."

(The UNC and KU fans in this thread trying to argue that the NCAA is consistent just got blown out of the water by none other than the NCAA.)

Of course, now we have Emmert who has already said that the NCAA doesn't have to follow precendent. Again, that produces a lack of consistency.

There is a difference between severity of penalties and selective enforcement. You, and others, have been arguing that the NCAA let's some schools get away with things other schools get punished for. I simply asked for one example, exactly like Maggette's case, where the school was punished. You can't find anything, yet still say it's true.

 

[johnnyflcat4life]

Difference was the NCAA knew about Kanter getting paid and, since he was still at UK/going to UK, could punish him. They didn't find out about Maggette until after his college career was over, no point ruling a guy ineligible who was already in the pros.

If there is no point ruling a kid ineligible who is already in the pros, then why did the NCAA rule Rose ineligible after he turned pro. I know why, because they were able to strip Memphis of title game appearance and all games played by Rose.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

If there is no point ruling a kid ineligible who is already in the pros, then why did the NCAA rule Rose ineligible after he turned pro. I know why, because they were able to strip Memphis of title game appearance and all games played by Rose.

This has already been addressed in this very thread.

 

[johnnyflcat4life]

I believe if you check a little closer you will find that Memphis was stripped of final four for playing an ineligible player. The player was Derrick Rose, who was declared ineligible for not cooperating with NCAA in their investigation.

Not sure if your comprehension is a little off or what. You quoted my post and told me to check a little closer and I would see that Rose was ineligible for not cooperating with NCAA. That was the whole point of my post. You basically typed a summary of my post and told me to do some research. My point was exactly this: Kansas claims that they won't be touched because the mom won't cooperate therefore the NCAA can't touch them. Derrick Rose didn't cooperate and the NCAA took this as an admission of guilt.

 

[johnnyflcat4life]

This has already been addressed in this very thread.

If it was already addressed than why do I still feel the need to explain it to you again?

 

[kybassfan]

Difference was the NCAA knew about Kanter getting paid and, since he was still at UK/going to UK, could punish him. They didn't find out about Maggette until after his college career was over, no point ruling a guy ineligible who was already in the pros.

So no. . . Not so much a difference.

The NCAA can do to a member institution whatever they choose. They could easily have made corrected the record to reflect the fact that an ineligible player was used. If the member institution were entitled to due process, then there is a slight chance you might have a point. However, that has been tested in court and the NCAA wins each time versus the member institution. Essentially, they can do what they damn well please. The point is doing the right thing in lieu of manufacturing excuses for not punishing a member institution. That said, I do not subscribe to the favoritism witch hunt. There is a much simpler explanation.

The NCAA must honor due process for individuals. The Maggette situation was already bound and gagged in the court as a criminal matter. If Maggette had decided to pursue any relief from the NCAA, as a civil suit, he's only bound by preponderance of evidence. From a legal standpoint, Maggette was an easily avoidable mess so the NCAA simply stepped over it. Duke skated and everyone is happy. Well except for the ones that had been penalized for using compensated players. Cheaper to let them whine than risk the legal entanglement that Maggette presented.

So there was no point to ruling him ineligible. Well, unless concepts like amateurism in college athletics and dedication to ethics is important to you. But no problem, we're talking Duke and the NCAA. Those concepts are WAY down the priority list. Sort'a like academic integrity to UNC. But you know this.

 

[Stonewall12]

JP Scott is correct.












As usual.

 

[Lumpy 2]

This is not true, according to the Wetzel article. Here, I'll just post his time-line, feel free to disagree:

April 1997 to August 1997: Kansas City summer basketball coach Myron Piggie makes cash payments to high school player Corey Maggette totaling $2,000. The money comes from a revenue pool that includes donations to Piggie from professional sports agents Kevin Poston and Jerome Stanley.

Nov. 12, 1997: Maggette signs a national letter of intent with Duke.

October 1998 to March 1999: Maggette averages 10.6 points per game to help Duke (37-2) reach the national championship game, which Duke loses to Connecticut.

June 30, 1999: Maggette is selected 13th in the NBA draft.

April 13, 2000: A federal grand jury in Missouri hands down an 11-count indictment of Piggie, which details the payments to Maggette (along with players at three other schools). By NCAA statutes the payments compromise Maggette's amateur status. Maggette initially denies receiving any money.

April 18, 2000: The NCAA's Jane Jankowski says: "We will have to determine if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. And, if so, what monies would have to be returned for use of an ineligible player."

May 23, 2000: Piggie works a plea bargain and admits making the payments.

July 12, 2000: Maggette comes clean and admits he received the cash from Piggie.

Spring 2001: Duke hands over all its information to the NCAA, according to John Burness, Duke's senior vice president for public affairs.

May 30, 2001: Piggie is sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for fraud.

January 2003: Piggie is paroled from federal prison in Arkansas.

Where in this article does it say Maggette and his teammates weren't questioned by the NCAA about payments they received before entering school? And I'll ask you again, can you give another example where the NCAA found out a player took money which is a clear violation then did nothing to punish the player or school?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

If it was already addressed than why do I still feel the need to explain it to you again?

What?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

So no. . . Not so much a difference.

The NCAA can do to a member institution whatever they choose. They could easily have made corrected the record to reflect the fact that an ineligible player was used. If the member institution were entitled to due process, then there is a slight chance you might have a point. However, that has been tested in court and the NCAA wins each time versus the member institution. Essentially, they can do what they damn well please. The point is doing the right thing in lieu of manufacturing excuses for not punishing a member institution. That said, I do not subscribe to the favoritism witch hunt. There is a much simpler explanation.

The NCAA must honor due process for individuals. The Maggette situation was already bound and gagged in the court as a criminal matter. If Maggette had decided to pursue any relief from the NCAA, as a civil suit, he's only bound by preponderance of evidence. From a legal standpoint, Maggette was an easily avoidable mess so the NCAA simply stepped over it. Duke skated and everyone is happy. Well except for the ones that had been penalized for using compensated players. Cheaper to let them whine than risk the legal entanglement that Maggette presented.

So there was no point to ruling him ineligible. Well, unless concepts like amateurism in college athletics and dedication to ethics is important to you. But no problem, we're talking Duke and the NCAA. Those concepts are WAY down the priority list. Sort'a like academic integrity to UNC. But you know this.

I really don't understand how you can't differentiate between the two. They ruled Kanter ineligible for his future games after they realized he was receiving payments (roughly speaking), same would have been done to Maggette. They didn't go back and rule Maggette ineligible or punish Duke for the games prior to them finding out about Maggette getting paid because they couldn't meet the requirements, this was in the article linked before.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

JP Scott is correct.












As usual.

In regards to...?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Where in this article does it say Maggette and his teammates weren't questioned by the NCAA about payments they received before entering school? And I'll ask you again, can you give another example where the NCAA found out a player took money which is a clear violation then did nothing to punish the player or school?

It doesn't say the players weren't questioned about the bank robbery that occurred slightly prior to this. Does that mean that I can state as fact they were.

I didn't make the claim that the NCAA was inconsistent, you guys did. Therefore it's your job to find the inconsistency not mine. That is how a debate works.

 

[Stonewall12]

In regards to...?

Everything you have posted in this thread should cover it.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Everything you have posted in this thread should cover it.

Great, considering we finally agreed...at least I'm assuming as he stopped responding.

 

[Lumpy 2]

It doesn't say the players weren't questioned about the bank robbery that occurred slightly prior to this. Does that mean that I can state as fact they were.

I didn't make the claim that the NCAA was inconsistent, you guys did. Therefore it's your job to find the inconsistency not mine. That is how a debate works.

And the fact that you can't find another example of the NCAA having proof that a player took money either before competing or during his time in school and did not punish the player or school proves they are inconsistent. People employed by the NCAA have admitted they are inconsistent and judge schools based on who they are and who the coach is. How much more proof do you need?