It demonstrates, as in the Maggette case, of what the NCAA must prove in order to hand out punishment when the player is a not a student at a university. By the way, had Cam been at Auburn at the time of his father soliciting money, he would've had been ruled ineligible both post and prior to the NCAA finding out. I'm gonna do it, even though I know your response, I'm gonna ask...do you still not see any difference in a player getting gifts before college and getting gifts in college. Please, tell me you at least understand that now.
So where does the NCAA stand on the Cliff Alexander
- Thread starter nookam
- Start date
It demonstrates, as in the Maggette case, of what the NCAA must prove in order to hand out punishment when the player is a not a student at a university. By the way, had Cam been at Auburn at the time of his father soliciting money, he would've had been ruled ineligible both post and prior to the NCAA finding out. I'm gonna do it, even though I know your response, I'm gonna ask...do you still not see any difference in a player getting gifts before college and getting gifts in college. Please, tell me you at least understand that now.
Hey Preacher! Thanks. Hope all is well and health is good.
Yeah, I feel a little bad about Bobby though. Toward the end I was getting the impression he was a kid armed with google and not much history. I'll likely just drop out of it. Hopefully he has enough sense to leave JP Scott alone. If there is one guy on this board I would not consider debating it would be JP.
I wondered where you were. Glad you're back, and hopefully those places had no internet because they were some beautiful islands in the pacific. However, your reading comprehension hasn't improved during your absence
.That's not the issue, though. Basically, you're asking the wrong question. So I expect your retort, if any, will say something like "exactly, you have no cases that meet my description." Just save it.
Precedent is rarely so exact even in the law, where there are more cases by several orders of magnitude. The issue with Missouri, UMass, etc... wasn't that the player took money while in college. It's that the player was ineligible when they played, and precedent said that meant the games were forfeit:
"Duke University did not know and was not in a position to know that it had an ineligible player," NCAA public information coordinator Jane Janikowski said. "I expect they will lose 45 percent of the revenue earned at the 1999 NCAA tournament, plus an automatic vacation of their performance in the tournament. In all the cases that have been similar to this one, that is what the precedent has been."
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2000/07/19/ncaa-set-sanction-duke#.VVNvsflVhBc
So the NCAA's public information coordinator thought that the situations were precedent. "In all cases that have been similar to" the Maggette case. That's how precedent works, period. The entirely of the law, which is roughly analogous to how the NCAA governs its member schools, was built on using similar, but not exactly the same, cases in such a manner.
You're splitting hairs in ways that are admirable, and even ethically required, in an adversarial legal system. But you're basically coming across as a defensive lawyer: biased and myopic.
Bobbi. Jeez, I live in the area. We had to live that story for months on end. Alabama fans were storming the NCAA to bring this to their attention. Had they been able to pin the slightest thing on Newton, the NCAA would have buried Auburn under its own stadium. Auburn knew nothing. Cam knew nothing. Cam did nothing. Had a Maggette like cheat or UNC like academic fraud presented itself, I don't know anyone with any intelligence that thinks the NCAA would not have destroyed Auburn. Keep in mind, I don't like Auburn and would have loved to see the NCAA trash them.
Ok, I'm going to answer your question, but you will not understand the answer. When a person breaks the rules, the rules are broken. An ethical person or organization owns up that that and holds themselves accountable. A player is not allowed to accept money, gifts, favors or other compensation for play in a given sport prior to participation in a D1 program sanctioned by the NCAA. This isn't a game of "what did you know and when did you know it". If you enjoy that game, I strongly suggest politics where ethics are not considered a prerequisite. So, the answer is, once a professional always a professional, no matter how many lies you tell. I'll even go a step further. If the Maggette had done the same thing at Ky, I would expect the university to vacate the wins and any titles. I would expect the same if KY had committed the academic fraud that seems to have taken place at UNC.
As I noted to Preacher, this is getting a little embarrassing. I don't know whether you are a kid that is profoundly naïve or an adult that condones cheating though the use of deflection and irrelevance.. I prefer to assume the former though that paints me in a bad light. You should run along now. I'm done playing.
Last edited:
Except in the case of Lance Thomas, so your own tortured logic is inconsistent with the NCAA.
It's like you have backed yourself in a corner by claiming for some silly reason that the NCAA is not inconsistent and you refuse to acknowledge direct quotes from NCAA employees in this very thread in which they admit that they are inconsistent.
You remind me of Baghdad Bob at this point....
Except in the case of Lance Thomas, so your own tortured logic is inconsistent with the NCAA.
It's like you have backed yourself in a corner by claiming for some silly reason that the NCAA is not inconsistent and you refuse to acknowledge direct quotes from NCAA employees in this very thread in which they admit that they are inconsistent.
You remind me of Baghdad Bob at this point....
Ah, now, here we go. I'm not that familiar with the Thomas case, but just on the surface it does appear Duke should be held accountable here...at least according to the NCAA's statement in the previously linked article. Thanks for bringing this up. By the way, I never argued that the NCAA is/was consistent, only that the Maggette case did not show any inconsistency, and I think we can agree that this is the case.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Now I'm curious what changed between this guys comments and the comments posted before which clearly imply they couldn't punish either party. Well then, maybe the Maggette case does show the inconsistency of the NCAA, as it shows they correctly followed their guidelines in that case but not in others similar preceding it. Thanks again for the comments.
Thanks for the chat. No worries though, as your comrades made up for your shortcomings. Perhaps I need to sound things out better when we debate, I will keep that in mind for the future.
You keep asking for examples of players who, like Maggette took money before entering school but unlike Maggette were punished by the NCAA. Maggette's AAU teammates, Kareem and Jaron Rush were also proven to have taken money from their coach Myron Piggie at the same time he was paying Maggette. Jaron Rush was ruled ineligible for a total of 44 games (later reduced to 24) and Kareem was suspended for 9 games. All 3 players took money at the same time from the same person. The Rush brothers were both found to have violated NCAA rules and were punished. Maggette was not. Is that proof enough for you?
Why do you have to go and insult complete idiots? This guy could only wish he had the mental capacity of a complete idiot.
Proof of...? The NCAA did not clear Maggette, they just didn't punish him/Duke for the games he'd already played in. If Maggette was still at Duke then the NCAA would've had no choice but to sit him down some future games. Did they force UCLA or Mizzou to vacate games, or did they just force them to sit games after-the-fact?
As a Kansas fan, I don't totally understand how it all works. All I know is that when KU was alerted that there could possibly be impropriety, we sat Alexander. I believe the NCAA was contacted and approval was obtained to allow him to practice. What more can you ask of a school and staff? If we would have played him while waiting a ruling...i could see how a school could be held liable. Not just my school, but any school. Now if there were tangible evidence that a school or staff members were aware of the situation beforehand and tried to keep it on the DL---then you'd have a whole new situation all together. Sometimes it doesn't seem like fans give a shit what the story actually is---they just want to follow their own pre determined narrative. Cal, Self, K, Roy.....all take calculated risks at times, but not a single one would move forward with a recruit if they knew of serious misgivings that would potentially hurt their team. In Rose's situation, we never got to hear his side of the story which sucks. If the NCAA cleared Rose to play, then it seems ridic that they would hold other parties accountable that had no control over what did or didn't happen. If the NCAA tells K, Self, Cal, Roy that a player can play, they should be able to trust that.
No "strict liability" like they ruled with Memphis. The NCAA ruled Maggette did not know taking money was a NCAA violation. Where in their statement did they say he would not have been eligible to continue playing at Duke?
Last edited:
Bobby is just an example of those UNC*** fans who either live in a fantasy land or have lost their ethics due to their UNC*** fanaticism.
Absolute BS. Maggette was never charged with a violation after an extensive investigation. The NCAA didn't even so much as issue a reprimand or statement of wrongdoing.
It would be a complete violation of the NCAA's own rules and policies for them to order a player to be suspended after an investigation that found no violation!
Dude, show us the NCAA report that Maggette was charged with a violation!!!
I find it interesting that when Bobby first appeared on this forum, it was under another name. His purpose was to promote Bradley Bethel's blog blasting Willingham and Smith.
Bradley is a wrestling fan and came back on this board as bobbyb-tickle-swerve.
Note the quote below from The Swerved:
The night before Bobby Lashley challenges for the ECW World Title, Vince should sneak into Bobby's hotel room with some supplies. Once he gains entrance into the room, he'll place a lump of shaving cream in Bobby's right hand, then dip Bobby's other hand in a bowl of warm water. When Vince finds a feather, he should tickle Bobby in the face with it. Next, just as Bobby is about to wake up from slumber, Vince should throw him out the window.
Jiggle Tooth likes talking about Duke and other schools because he tries to take the focus off UNC*** and its 20 year scandal designed to help mainly minority athletes to stay eligible at the cost of those minority athletes receiving a real education. UNC*** gives athletes fake degrees so UNC*** can get fake championships. UNC*** didn't care if the athlete could read or do simple math as long as he could put the ball through the hoop and win games.
Last edited:
I'm saying they would have. Just my opinion, but I seriously doubt Duke and or Maggette would escape all punishment. Yes, they couldn't prove Maggette knew he was ineligible, that's why they couldn't force Duke to vacate games. Does it bother you that UCLA and Mizzou didn't have to vacate any games? So, just so we're on the same page, Maggette and the Rush's all took money/gifts from Piggie; the NCAA found out and investigated; none of the schools were forced to vacate games in which they played, nor any other penalties; the NCAA suspended JaRon and Kareem (# games based off of # gifts) for future games but not Maggette as he was already gone. Is this correct? By the way, the Rose case is different on many levels.
Just like you keep telling us; we don't want your opinion, we want facts. Maggette and Rose were both determined to have committed violations that would have made them ineligible by NCAA rules. The NCAA cleared Rose before the season started and didn't notify Memphis there was a problem with his eligibility. They declared him ineligible after the season when his SAT was invalidated without definitive proof he didn't take the test. They had a sworn statement from Maggette that he took $2,000 and then lied when he was questioned about it. Why wasn't "strict liability" applied to Maggette and Duke the same as Rose and Memphis?
Last edited:
Why do you and others in this thread continually LEAVE OUT that Memphis/Cal/Rose were alerted BEFORE the start of the season that the test score he got (required for him to be eligible) was being questioned/investigated by the ETS? The NCAA ruled so strongly against Memphis specifically because Cal/Memphis knew his eligibility was in jeapordy and chose to take the risk of playing him anyway.
It is the MOST IMPORTANT fact in Rose being ultimately declared Ineligible and why his situation DOES NOT compare with Maggette, Arthur, and just about every other situation that Rose gets compared to by so many in this thread.
In fact the only comparison to the actual subject of this thread is that they are a contrast in opposites. Self/KU sat Alexander the moment KU learned there were questions about his eligibility. Cal chose to do the opposite with Rose.
I just don't understand the disconnect with this. I really wonder if it's selective amnesia.
Last edited:
You should really go back and read up on the Rose case. I've supplied a link to the allegations report numerous times, you should seriously read it.
What was the date when Memphis/Cal/Rose were notified? The forensic document examiner completed her examination on 9/2/07 and could not give a definitive answer whether or not Rose took the test. The NCAA Clearinghouse cleared Rose to play with the information from the document examiner. The NCAA acted only after the ETS invalidated Rose's test scores. The first letter the ETS sent to Rose asking for information about the test was on 4/17/08.
I've been busy reading about all the crap that went on at UNC but I have read the link you supplied. It didn't support your claims.
Okay, the obvious question is: Then, why are you not wanting the truth to come out IF this situation really doesn't warrant any further punishment? If the kid willingly violated NCAA rules and the punishment is in line with all other similar cases, KU is clear. So, why were you saying that you hope mom never talks earlier? I honestly don't get it.
What is the fear?
The fear is that they cheated. The mom knows she is guilty and the paperwork will probably point at her son as well. She has done enough damage to her son's career and I am sure she is just trying to stop the bleeding. You would still be hard pressed to convince me Cliff didn't sign those papers or at least know about it.
But, even if he did, according to some posters, the NCAA will not do any more than they have done. This was in HS and the college can't vacate games over it.
I hate to sound rude but, did you read anything I posted? If they can show Cliff knew then they can vacate games. How on earth is it that you don't understand this?
It helps if you know the facts of the situation, which you obviously don't. This should help:
Paul Dee, the chairman for the committee on infractions, said in a teleconference that even though Memphis was not aware of Rose's questionable test score until midway through his freshman year, once the score was invalidated by Educational Testing Service, Rose no longer met the initial eligibility standards.
"This is a situation of strict liability," Dee said. "If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did."
According to Dee, even if Cal had sat him when the questions arose, Memphis would still have to vacate all games he played in. So, what did Memphis have to lose by playing him?
Why would Cliff know when Maggette didn't know?
All athletes are instructed on the rules of amateurism by the respective universities. How in the world could Maggette not know if Duke did what they are required to do? That makes no sense. No wonder I misunderstood you point. It was too stupid even for you!
Last edited:
To quote Bobby earlier in this thread:
"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."
See, dude, there is nothing there about "knowing." You have shifted your argument yet again. You are truly good at shifting and shifting. You and UNC are the perfect fit.
"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."
See, dude, there is nothing there about "knowing." You have shifted your argument yet again. You are truly good at shifting and shifting. You and UNC are the perfect fit.
@saxon
An article was linked (most likely after my comment that you link) which said the NCAA, to rule Maggette ineligible, had to show that either the university knew or should've known they were playing an ineligible player or the player himself knew he was ineligible, and since he was not enrolled yet at Duke then Duke could not be held responsible for knowing. Hence, it reduced down to proving Maggette knew he was ineligible, which obviously they couldn't. So, is it still hard understand why it would be bad for KU if they NCAA could prove Cliff knew he was ineligible? Do I always have to keep rewriting this over and over again? Can you seriously not understand these differences?
Edit: You know what, you're right. You've always been right. I was wrong, I cannot read, etc. Thanks for the chat. I'll look for other simpletons like myself to further converse with. Oh, sorry you have to live in fear of the NCAA shutting UK down because they don't like them, I know it must be hard.
An article was linked (most likely after my comment that you link) which said the NCAA, to rule Maggette ineligible, had to show that either the university knew or should've known they were playing an ineligible player or the player himself knew he was ineligible, and since he was not enrolled yet at Duke then Duke could not be held responsible for knowing. Hence, it reduced down to proving Maggette knew he was ineligible, which obviously they couldn't. So, is it still hard understand why it would be bad for KU if they NCAA could prove Cliff knew he was ineligible? Do I always have to keep rewriting this over and over again? Can you seriously not understand these differences?
Edit: You know what, you're right. You've always been right. I was wrong, I cannot read, etc. Thanks for the chat. I'll look for other simpletons like myself to further converse with. Oh, sorry you have to live in fear of the NCAA shutting UK down because they don't like them, I know it must be hard.
I find it hysterical that you now admit that you were arguing a point that you had NO idea of what you were arguing. Most of us are quite familiar with the Maggette case and there were numerous posts in the early pages of this thread about Maggette getting off because the NCAA said he didn't know it was a violation.
So, someone has to post a link for you to know the basic well-known facts of the case that you were debating based on knowing nothing????? LOLROF! You overlooked the facts being given and debated a false premise??? LOLROF again!
Bobby, bobby, bobby,
I am SO disappointed in you. You argued a case that you hadn't bothered to find out the facts of the case? Next time, follow the advice of KBF when he gives you the link www.google.com
BTW, NEVER debate JPScott if you don't know what you are talking about. I offer that as free advice, my friend. I also learned that lesson the hard way!
As for the KU fan, maybe you and he can start a thread entitle: "Please educate us on the facts of the Maggette and Rose cases." Then, after you guys learn the basic facts, you can come back and debate intelligently.
Sorry I can't stick around to see the end of this discussion. I have a plane to catch. Carry on!
I am SO disappointed in you. You argued a case that you hadn't bothered to find out the facts of the case? Next time, follow the advice of KBF when he gives you the link www.google.com
BTW, NEVER debate JPScott if you don't know what you are talking about. I offer that as free advice, my friend. I also learned that lesson the hard way!
As for the KU fan, maybe you and he can start a thread entitle: "Please educate us on the facts of the Maggette and Rose cases." Then, after you guys learn the basic facts, you can come back and debate intelligently.
Sorry I can't stick around to see the end of this discussion. I have a plane to catch. Carry on!
Actually no, from reading this thread it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. I've states on several occasions what the NCAA has said about Maggette and why they didn't punish Duke nor him (retroactively) -- IT IS THREE PAGES AGO, JUST GO READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE.
Also, where did I changed my stance?
I guess the only consolation of wasting my time trying to argue with you is that others can see just how impossible you are to talk with. Perhaps this will save them some time, they can see you contribute nothing to the argument and simply change around stories trying to make the other person look bad. Yes, luckily for all of thus, this thread now exists.
Good luck with your brethren, for you'll have to somehow convince them you're not some ridiculous clown and are actually capable of contributing something of relevance. But then, I guess, you'd need to actually care about doing that, which I don't think you do. It's just impossible for you to follow along long enough to actually get something out of caring. Peace out.
Which case is that? Where have I ever said anything that was not true? How about this, rather than just throwing out insults, BACK IT UP WITH EXAMPLES for once.
You remind of the old lady driver who got a call on her cell phone from her husband to be careful driving because he had heard on the news of a driver going the wrong way on the parkway. Her response was: "THERE ISN'T JUST ONE DRIVER GOING THE WRONG WAY. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THEM!"
I continue to believe that you are truly mentally challenged. There cannot be another explanation. I put a lot people like you behind bars and they never did understand why what they did was wrong. Some people are just destined to be clueless. It often runs in the family.
Similar threads
