That is not how it works. Ok, let me try again. In order to use the Maggette case to begin to show the NCAA is inconsistent you must first find a similar case were there ruled differently. That is, find any case were a player received impermissible benefits in high school (only!), in which the NCAA found out about after that player had enrolled in college, and then punished the school/player for games already played (not future games!).
So where does the NCAA stand on the Cliff Alexander
- Thread starter nookam
- Start date
That is not how it works. Ok, let me try again. In order to use the Maggette case to begin to show the NCAA is inconsistent you must first find a similar case were there ruled differently. That is, find any case were a player received impermissible benefits in high school (only!), in which the NCAA found out about after that player had enrolled in college, and then punished the school/player for games already played (not future games!).
Actually it is not true. Players who go to Duke or UNC can accept extra benefits before and during college and the NCAA says it is acceptable as long as it doesn't become public. Extra benefits include cash, cars, hookers, drugs, guns and A's in AFAM.
What ineligible players has Kansas had? Kansas and their players have faced the proper penalty for every violation that they have had involving their players. Not sure why you think Kansas has gotten off easy since they have been impacted by numerous penalties against their players.
No, that's not how it works. In order to prove the NCAA is not inconsistent you have to find another case where the NCAA had proof a player committed an NCAA violation but didn't punish the school for using an ineligible player and you have to prove the NCAA employees were lying when they said the NCAA was inconsistent in their rulings. Examples of players being ruled ineligible for accepting money either before enrolling or during their time in school were Marcus Camby, Chris Webber, Enis Kanter and Brandon and Jaron Rush. Now give me an example of anyone besides Maggette who wasn't.
Therein lies the problem.
UNC will be saved only if they fire the povost and replace the scumbag with someone like Mary Willingham.
Not comparable, why? Because of rules for comparison that YOU established? That means as much to me as the inside of dean smitch's phoney virtues = Jack Squat.
I can answer your question. The NCAA official who explained it said that the NCAA did not have enough people to individually check every schools year book for that type of misinformation. However, they would be glad to have them corrected if they were brought to the attention of the NCAA.
The threats you mentioned was issued by the NCAA to UK when school officials balked at removing the "vacated Wins" in Cal's total career wins. Later UK agreed to have the vacated wins removed from his total.
The threats you mentioned was issued by the NCAA to UK when school officials balked at removing the "vacated Wins" in Cal's total career wins. Later UK agreed to have the vacated wins removed from his total.
You asked earlier in the thread what would be the point of ruling someone ineligible if they are already in the pros. I gave you an answer and you replied by saying this has already been discussed in this very thread. I then replied, if it has already been discussed then why does it need to continue to be explained to you. That is the reason for my replies to you. Do
Are you sure? You sure sound like them.
how do I know that? The ncaa has no public forum available to them through which they could vent their bevvy of bullshit reasons for selective enforcements. The idea that that a few of them would create monikers with minor lopsided appearance (drunk from north Carolina) and enter here with well prepared, energetic, timely counter-defense arguments seems plausible enough. Why should they be any different? wtf, else can they do after that neutered feeling weighs heavily. Too nutless to do anything else, too worthless to try.
Johnny, sorry about that. I evidently hit wrong reply button, I wasn't replying to your post.In fact i agree with what you are saying.
Ok, if you think it's punishment to declare someone ineligible for his sophomore season when he'll already be in the pros then I'm not sure what else to say. I don't think anyone in Memphis would care if that was Rose's punishment.
Also, I don't need the Rose scandal explained, considering I've been explaining it to others in this thread.
Wow, you guys like to insult. Does it not bother any of you that not one person has given any example that shows the NCAA ruled inconsistently in the Rose case nor the Maggette case? Rather than challenging their rulings with other cases you simply assert you're right then back it up with insults. I really expected different results, seeing as how there are so many self-proclaimed experts around here. I know it's hard for some to comprehend, but the next move is for you to supply the cases showing the NCAA's inconsistencies in the Maggette case. I'll wait for that.
Why should anyone even try to have a conversation with you? You are a complete idiot. You have zero ability to comprehend a simple logical argument. I think you are Bradley and Jay Smith is right about your lack of mental stability.
Those errors were brought to the attention of the NCAA. They have not been addressed by the NCAA either.
I read the NCAA rebuke and it was over the top. The same organization that refused to admit that Maggette violated NCAA rules clearly went after UK.
Here is a GREAT response by Jay Smith against those who attacked Mary Willingham. Everone should read it:
http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-mary-willinghams-enemies/
"Chief among the haters, however, is UNC learning specialist Bradley Bethel, who now plays Gollum to Willingham’s Frodo. Bethel has spent much of his time in the past month or so penning screeds against Willingham (with one directed also at me.) Bethel disputes Willingham’s statistics, but his over-the-top rhetoric makes clear, again, that numbers are not really the issue. He wants to protect his “precious”–the collegiate model of sport whose virtues he has made part of his own identity, the very justification for his professional life."
http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-mary-willinghams-enemies/
"Chief among the haters, however, is UNC learning specialist Bradley Bethel, who now plays Gollum to Willingham’s Frodo. Bethel has spent much of his time in the past month or so penning screeds against Willingham (with one directed also at me.) Bethel disputes Willingham’s statistics, but his over-the-top rhetoric makes clear, again, that numbers are not really the issue. He wants to protect his “precious”–the collegiate model of sport whose virtues he has made part of his own identity, the very justification for his professional life."
Enjoy your wait. I think the burden of proof is on you. Asking open ended vague questions where the answers can easily be twisted to whatever end you chose is rather petty. Also, you aren't very good at it. Searching for precedent in an institution which is essentially a benevolent (sort of) despot ruling its member institutions is disingenuous when that institution is not compelled to follow those precedents. Imposition of caveats as a means dismiss clear examples of rule violations doesn't serve the purpose of ethical outcome on your part or the NCAA's. You aren't debating. You are just baiting. Quit asking the same leading questions over and over and you might get an answer and save yourself an insult or two.
You expected different results. Then you expected gullibility. Where basketball is concerned, you won't fund much of that here. Making you wrong, again.
They didn't declare him ineligible for his sophomore season you jackass. He was deemed ineligible in every game he played in his freshman year. This is why wins and banners came down. Memphis doesn't care about what would've happened his sophomore year. He was gone and they were the ones punished. Stop trying to argue when there is no argument.
These are hard-hitters, on the pipe 'round these parts, bro. But if you think those are insults then you probably need to go away and come back when your panties grow a few sizes more. This ain't your candy-ass message "bored" forum like you p*ss ants in chapel hill like to manicure. If it was, you would have stopped talking days ago. But we get your recipe: examine cases and identify them down to detail for an exclusiveness, such that no argumentative like-for-like comparison (in identical terms) is available. That is your technique. We. Get. It. No it doesn't "bother us" because tort fundamentals are not lost in the reflection simply because a perfect mirror image cannot shine across unc's and kansas' and dook's cesspool lakes of non-virtue and sh*t corruption. Your method is actually not clever at all, but I give you high marks for effort. The time you devoted to us on Mother's Day afternoon alone, my word, dude. Did you neuter yourself or did somebody do that for you?
OJ Mayo. Took money in high school. Wasn't discovered until after freshman and only season.
Seems inconsistent with Maggette ruling.
One thing to keep in mind with respect to the NCAA itself recognizing that they are inconsistent in their rulings is that if anyone asks an NCAA official today about the Corey Maggette ruling, none of them will defend it, instead they say it occurred prior to them being there.
FWIW, not only the mass media recognizes the NCAA's inconsistency but there are professors and lawyers who specialize in NCAA compliance and law etc., including people who have worked at the NCAA, who I've talked to in the past regarding various issues and they freely admit that the NCAA has been wildly inconsistent throughout their tenure. I have to think they would get a kick out of someone actually trying to claim otherwise, as our persistent guest has repeatedly tried to do.
No open-ended questions at all. It was brought up in this thread that the NCAA plays favorites and the Maggette case was offered as an example. We then had a link to an article in which the NCAA explained what they needed to prove in order to punish Duke and/or Maggette, they could not reach this. Then the cry-outs shifted to saying they would still have punished other programs under the same circumstances. To which I asked, and am still waiting, for another example were the player which through the same circumstances as Maggette and which the school was punished. The proof is not on me, I never made any claims. You (speaking collectively) made the claim, hence it is your job to explain why what you say is true. I have no problem backing my comments up with other articles and even the actual allegations report in a few cases. Apparently some here do. You can keep throwing out insults all you like, but we both know that you're grasping at straws and are unable to provide any backup for your comments.
Was it not obvious in the original post you quoted that I was talking about future suspensions, rather than retroactively suspending players. Of course, vacating games is punishment. Not sure how you'd think I was saying it wasn't.
Different. Mayo accepted impermissible benefits in high school AND while at USC as well. Once the player gets on campus the NCAA will say the school should've known. Since Maggette was still in high school, and never suspected of taking gifts while at Duke, it was up to the NCAA to show that Maggette knew he was ineligible during those games. They were not able to do this, hence no punishment for Duke and non for Maggette -- of course he would've been considered ineligible for future games the moment the NCAA found out about the payments.
Well then, surely we can find another case like Maggette's that was handled differently, or at least comments from people in the NCAA saying this about the case, right?
Grabbing at straws? I correctly predicted your response. You responded with the same question I don't know how many times now. You've been given many examples. I think the only excuse you haven't used is that the names were spelled differently. This is life. Rarely are two situations absolutely and exactly the same. A wise person can look for commonality between roughly similar situations and draw conclusions. You apparently not only lack that skill but are unable to recognize it in others.
You are getting worse than that stupid knight in the Monty Python movie, barking his challenge after having his limbs cut off. It's pathetic, actually.
Once again, accepting money in high school AND in college != accepting money in high school only. You understand that once the player begins playing at a university the athletic department/coaches assume responsibility for the player (to the effect that if the player later accepts money while in school then they're (the program) responsible for knowing that this player is/could be ineligible), correct? Do you now see why I'm complaining when people keep coming up with cases where the player accepted money in high school AND while at their respective university? Maggette did not take anything while at Duke (at least he's never been accused of such). Hence the NCAA cannot hold Duke liable, and can only rule Magette ineligible if he himself knew he was ineligible. Yes, you can argue that this is a dumb way to go about things. I'll probably agree. But you can't say they didn't abide by their rules and regulations. No, that would take a similar case (money/gifts in high school BUT NOT while in college) where the NCAA still punished the school (vacating wins, loss of scholarships, etc.), but as of yet nobody has anything to compare it with. There are lots of examples of schools getting hammered for players taking impermissible benefits while in college, in addition to players losing prior and future eligibility, but nothing proposed where the player only got goods in high school. Perhaps a close comparison would be Cam Newton, but I'm not completely sure what all happened there (I think Auburn was not held liable because he was not a student there at the time and Cam was not held liable because the NCAA couldn't prove he knew about the father soliciting money from MSU, hence he wouldn't have known he was ineligible -- this of course is assuming the NCAA thought his father was really asking for money).
Cannot hold Puke, err Duke liable? They can do anything they like to a member institution.
Yeah, let's use Cam Newton. Maggette took money, lied then admitted taking it. Newton didn't take money, told the truth, then admitted he really didn't take it. Wait, what did they have in common? Duke wasn't held accountable for playing a professional. Auburn wasn't held accountable for playing an amateur. One broke the rules and was unpunished one didn't break the rules and wasn't punished. Huh?
Bobbi, that's just sad. Maybe you should pick a different thread. There's one on Calipari leaving for the NBA.
Last edited:
This thread is sad... In case anyone was wondering, nothing said here will change anything the NCAA has done in the past or will do in the future.
That's an understatement. I find myself arguing with a broken record who's handle includes the string "tickle swerve".
Welcome back, KBF! Long time , no see.
Anyway, I just read this thread and enjoyed the way you absolutely owned poor Bobby. It is hysterical watching him try and somehow redeem his completely ridiculous positions.
I haven't been around much lately due to traveling to places with no internet. But, it was good to be able to login and catch up today.
Latest posts
-
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)- Latest: RunninRichie
-
-
-
-