Basic arguement:
We cheated but it didn't help much and this punishment is to severe
https://t.co/JZ6hIaqfHb?amp=1
We cheated but it didn't help much and this punishment is to severe
https://t.co/JZ6hIaqfHb?amp=1
UofL appeal made public
- Thread starter cbrwalt
- Start date
I posted this on another forum regarding the "reinstatement" argument, which I think is the strongest argument made, though likely still futile:
The problem with the reinstatement argument, which is still a necessary and somewhat persuasive argument, is that the example player may not have (and likely was not) involved in the more egregious acts. But I get it. Louisville is arguing, understandably, that while they should be punished badly for what happened overall, the vacation of games and money is a separate issue that revolves solely around the ineligibility of players -- i.e., it should not turn on how bad the actual violations were by the school.
I don't think that will fly in the end because of the scale of this, the nature, and the fact that no matter how much you speculate about what would have happened the players still played while technically ineligible. What Louisville's argument does is open a huge can of worms where so long as a player is not caught until after they have finished playing, then they and the school can never be punished for playing while ineligible. I can't see how the NCAA will allow that to become the precedent. And if Louisville concedes that some games should be vacated, but not all, then how on earth do you determine what games should be vacated? That would be a completely arbitrary and useless exercise.
The problem with the reinstatement argument, which is still a necessary and somewhat persuasive argument, is that the example player may not have (and likely was not) involved in the more egregious acts. But I get it. Louisville is arguing, understandably, that while they should be punished badly for what happened overall, the vacation of games and money is a separate issue that revolves solely around the ineligibility of players -- i.e., it should not turn on how bad the actual violations were by the school.
I don't think that will fly in the end because of the scale of this, the nature, and the fact that no matter how much you speculate about what would have happened the players still played while technically ineligible. What Louisville's argument does is open a huge can of worms where so long as a player is not caught until after they have finished playing, then they and the school can never be punished for playing while ineligible. I can't see how the NCAA will allow that to become the precedent. And if Louisville concedes that some games should be vacated, but not all, then how on earth do you determine what games should be vacated? That would be a completely arbitrary and useless exercise.
Last edited:
There is plenty of precedent for punishing schools down the road when players have been retroactively declared ineligible. There is none for the alternative, good luck UofL!
Ul athletics should be shutdown for a few years and the restarted with totally new administrators and coaches.
So their argument is that if they had been caught paying for hos a few years earlier the punishment would have just been suspensions? Then the players would have been reinstated and eligible? Then maybe they should have reported themselves....
And are they saying since the players didn't specifically ask for hos they are innocent? So if UL just decides to hand out sacks of cash without the payers demanding it that makes it OK?
yeah... that's gonna fly
And are they saying since the players didn't specifically ask for hos they are innocent? So if UL just decides to hand out sacks of cash without the payers demanding it that makes it OK?
yeah... that's gonna fly
I just went on ahead and fixed that for ya.
I've finally came around and started to see this from the other side, the ville view. Don't forget that several of these girls were very young. Surely they were not well versed in the carnal arts at such at tender age. I would assume that when one pays for sex, the assumption would be that the sexee would have experience equal to the charge.
I submit to you, if the value is disputable, then isn't the entire situation debatable? If we can't agree on a value how can we be expected to believe any of it happened at all?
Rick said it didn't happen. As a Hall of Fame Coach I can't see where he would benefit from lying and saying he had no knowledge. He has too much to lose to lie about a situation like this. I would bet your last dollar he's telling the truth.
The bottom line is this. The NCAA has NEVER gone after a school for providing whores for recruits and existing players before. Ask yourself, WHY are the doing it to ul now? As you can plainly see, the NCAA is only out to punish ul for something that the majority of people in the world aren't even aware of! Where is the precident?
I realize that we make fun of ul, and for good reason, but this time is one of those times.
I submit to you, if the value is disputable, then isn't the entire situation debatable? If we can't agree on a value how can we be expected to believe any of it happened at all?
Rick said it didn't happen. As a Hall of Fame Coach I can't see where he would benefit from lying and saying he had no knowledge. He has too much to lose to lie about a situation like this. I would bet your last dollar he's telling the truth.
The bottom line is this. The NCAA has NEVER gone after a school for providing whores for recruits and existing players before. Ask yourself, WHY are the doing it to ul now? As you can plainly see, the NCAA is only out to punish ul for something that the majority of people in the world aren't even aware of! Where is the precident?
I realize that we make fun of ul, and for good reason, but this time is one of those times.
So UofL is arguing that Russ Smith (I am assuming) shouldn't have been declared ineligible because he only stopped in on one stripper party for 5 minutes. Even though other individuals testified he was more involved than he let on. UofL acknowledges that other witnesses contradicted Russ, but "they backtracked on that testimony or expressed uncertainty." And UofL found Russ' testimony more credible.
Think about that for a second, the University with the lowest credibility is weighing in on the credibility of other witnesses.
Essentially what it comes down to is UofL saying that they disputed some of the facts in the original NOA, the NCAA disagreed.... and the COI was supposed to resolve the dispute... which they did seemingly universally in the NCAA's favor. UofL is claiming they want the COI to explain why.
Then there is a whole bunch of complaining about the value of the hookers they used, saying that they were so cheap it falls below the threshold for declaring a player ineligible.
Think about that for a second, the University with the lowest credibility is weighing in on the credibility of other witnesses.
Essentially what it comes down to is UofL saying that they disputed some of the facts in the original NOA, the NCAA disagreed.... and the COI was supposed to resolve the dispute... which they did seemingly universally in the NCAA's favor. UofL is claiming they want the COI to explain why.
Then there is a whole bunch of complaining about the value of the hookers they used, saying that they were so cheap it falls below the threshold for declaring a player ineligible.
Ya they aren't winning the appeal.
Opening night would be a great night for the NCAA to show up at the BUM Center and lower the banner.
Not one sentence of that made any sense. Was that on purpose?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
If that's their argument, then the appeal is a waste of time.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the value of it.
Apparently UofL is only challenging the vacating of games in 2012 and 2013. They are not arguing against vacating games in 2014 and 2015.
I have to think the NCAA/COI will jump all over that. They should have challenged all of the vacating of games. Especially if their argument against vacating games was because the dollar amount was so low (cheap whores). The way it looks is that UofL is begging the Appeals Committee to cut a deal, by vacating some games but leaving the Title intact.
I have to think the NCAA/COI will jump all over that. They should have challenged all of the vacating of games. Especially if their argument against vacating games was because the dollar amount was so low (cheap whores). The way it looks is that UofL is begging the Appeals Committee to cut a deal, by vacating some games but leaving the Title intact.
They are asking for all of the vacation penalties to be wiped out, but that at very least the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 records be reinstated.
They really undercut their owb argument with that. It is basically "COME ON! This is the Final Four and a national championship!"
Also I think Louisville is really going out on a limb in saying that these players could have had their eligibility restored. I can't imagine those guys would have been permitted to ever again suit up for UL had the scandal been uncovered sooner.
I haven't read any of Zipp's posts about the topic. The methodology of the technique is quite simple. Merely take common sense, facts, and suppositions, polarize them to bottom dead center and you'll have the opinions and proclamations of the typical ul fan.I see someone has been reading zipp's brilliant take on this topic.
Zipp is merely a typical ul fan. Nothing more.
So, so very glad I am a UK fan and not a fan of the slimiest school in America. By the way, that is not hyperbole....They are truly the slimiest school in America.
Are you channeling that one guy who used to post here a few years ago? What was his username? WildCard or something? Everyone thought he was a Cat fan taking the most absurd arguments of card fans and acting like he believed them.
What ever happened to that guy?
Just a guess, but even if he was involved in the worst of it, that would not change my analysis.
As bad as some UL fans are Zipp is not typical. He is a vile and pathetic asshole. The world would be a better place without Zipp.
Where are all the dumb ass UL fans that swore Mathiang was really injured all year. Lmao...
I think it was Petjurino. Or maybe Strongtino. It was some combination of UofL villains.
WildCard posts a lot over on the football board.
The fact UL is willing to vacate the 2011-2012, and the 2013-2014 seasons but not the 2012-2013 season is in and of itself a pathetic admission of guilt.
This whole thing is BS.
I am down there everyday. Been around many if not probably most of these players at one time or another.
There is so much more to all this that is crazy how stuff is kept under the wraps.
Guys, I am so amazed how no one is questioning the two football players who were shot. Not one word from anyone.
One of my garages is within spitting distance from The Retreat where the shooting took place. It is a highly secured area. Multiple cameras, high fences, locked gates and no one knows jack.
Word around is the gun belonged to one of the shooters, a football player.
But the stripper gate appeal is so BS.
To me, UL is saying the money value does not add up to the punishment; that there is and has never been a dollar value affixed to use of whores in recruiting.
Screw the moral side to all this. 17 year old kids being forced to participate in something they felt was against their upbringing.
Then add in the fact they got a few of the dad's some sex but yet they still say it is all about the dollar value not being in line with the punishment.
To me, the NCAA is in a hot corner with this. Let UL off the hook and watch the righteous school presidents go bonkers. Many of the schools in the NCAA are faith based and this will not sit well with folks.
The biggest joke in all this is Slick himself appealing his punishment. He gets 5 games and thinks he is getting screwed.
UL is great at controlling the situation no matter what it is around campus.
I bought a UL banner and have it hanging on my garage down there with Velcro.
When the day comes, I am going to have a "bring down the Velcro'd banner" party and replace it with a home made banner with Michigan on it.
Screw the cheating A-holes.
Pot smoking and whores are plenty to be had down there.
I am down there everyday. Been around many if not probably most of these players at one time or another.
There is so much more to all this that is crazy how stuff is kept under the wraps.
Guys, I am so amazed how no one is questioning the two football players who were shot. Not one word from anyone.
One of my garages is within spitting distance from The Retreat where the shooting took place. It is a highly secured area. Multiple cameras, high fences, locked gates and no one knows jack.
Word around is the gun belonged to one of the shooters, a football player.
But the stripper gate appeal is so BS.
To me, UL is saying the money value does not add up to the punishment; that there is and has never been a dollar value affixed to use of whores in recruiting.
Screw the moral side to all this. 17 year old kids being forced to participate in something they felt was against their upbringing.
Then add in the fact they got a few of the dad's some sex but yet they still say it is all about the dollar value not being in line with the punishment.
To me, the NCAA is in a hot corner with this. Let UL off the hook and watch the righteous school presidents go bonkers. Many of the schools in the NCAA are faith based and this will not sit well with folks.
The biggest joke in all this is Slick himself appealing his punishment. He gets 5 games and thinks he is getting screwed.
UL is great at controlling the situation no matter what it is around campus.
I bought a UL banner and have it hanging on my garage down there with Velcro.
When the day comes, I am going to have a "bring down the Velcro'd banner" party and replace it with a home made banner with Michigan on it.
Screw the cheating A-holes.
Pot smoking and whores are plenty to be had down there.
Whoa whoa whoa. Why you be trying to use obvious logic to splain what everyone can see for theyselves. Clearrly, and obviously, ul is headed for the squeezebox. Your analytical description is appreciated and helpful. I hope looserville bites the big one and craptino does too.
P.S.
Zipp, you are a wart/scourge on society.
Last edited:
They can't even admit guilt correctly.This whole situation has reduced the entire school a bad joke.The value of any degree from UL has been reduced greatly,as long as Jurich,Pitino and anyone else who had a role in this remain employed there the value will continue to diminish
The fact that this has went well over 200 days with no arrests or suspects pretty much confirms that the shooter(s) is another UaVel athlete. Hearns pretty much confirmed it as well with his short, tight lipped interview when he was asked about the shootings at UaVel's media day.
End of August.
Then UL has 14 days to issue a rebuttal.
Then the NCAA has 10 days to issue final thoughts.
As soon as they can get up off the floor and quit laughing
Similar threads
