UofL appeal made public
- Thread starter cbrwalt
- Start date
Very good post and assessment. I just don't see how the NCAA can set a "5 year retroactive reinstatement" precedent.
The reinstatement "deal" usually involves HS recruits who may have gotten food and travel costs from an AAU coach or something like that.
The reinstatement "deal" can apply to a college player that "unknowingly" received a benefit from a booster without knowing it, lunch tab, motel room, etc. A little more of a stretch than the HS kid, but "could" happen.
UL's predicament however involves the benefits being received directly from a coach on the staff over a 4 year period, and for a "benefit" that the recipients should very well have been known (we're talking juniors and seniors here) to be impermissable.
IIRC, there was testimony from a former player (transfer?) that the the hooker parties were "common knowledge throughout the program", or something along those lines. This along with the unnamed assistant blaming a poor practice on a "stripper party". The "blame it all on AM" take is so very, very, very lame and pretty much total BS.
UL's sniveling about not punishing the whole team, taking away the FF and title is BS as well. Maybe Luke Hancock and other goody two shoes never participated in the festivities - against their moral standards, they had girlfriends they respected, not their thing, etc., etc. But they HAD TO HAVE KNOWN this stuff was going on. The fact that none of them informed Rick (or maybe they knew that he knew...???) makes them culpable and also bearing of guilt. So sorry your college career is toast, if you're feeling that bad about it go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourselves some tough questions.
Also hard to see how UL's defiant stance can help them, the centerpiece being Rick clinging to his "I didn't know" mantra along with not even being to acknowledge any slightest bit of responsibility of maybe he "at least" should have known. I mean it can only be one of two things, either he didn't know or he pretty much lost control over his program for 4 years. How can UL's post penalty reaction a few months ago and now the wording of the appeal, be doing them any favors.
One other thing that keeps coming to my mind that seems to be lost in the "hooker" facet is that the parties also provided alcohol (and in the form of liquor, not beer) to the 16 and 17 year old kids. Not as bad as the hooker deals I suppose, but still incredibly, incredibly irresponsible.
Really hard to see how UL can gain any traction with their appeal. Who on the committee wants to go on record as reducing appropriate penalties for a program that used hookers and alcohol to entertain their recruits. It is sad enough to see grown men try and argue for a reduction and "prostitute" themselves in the process (pun full intended!).
You make it sound like the appeals committee rehears the case, they do not. They have a very narrow job assessing whether or not errors were made. That's it.
There is another more glaring difference. That single player actually had eligibility left if he was reinstated. For the others the eligibility bell had been rung and there is no way to unring a bell.
UL's appeal is a final, desperate act. They are toast. Have you read the NCAA report? Do you really believe the NCAA would write and publish a document that says what that document says in plain English, then reverse themselves a couple of months later? Not going to happen.
That's an interesting point. But if a parent did file civil litigation against UL, UL's expensive attorneys would settle the case without a trial, and cut the parent a large check with a confidentiality clause in the agreement. In other words, a civil filing may have already happened, but we will never hear anything about it in public. The only facts we will hear will be those described in the NCAA report.
Although I would assume the filing procedure itself would still be public, even if the content is sealed?
They think they have a great chance to win the appeal.
http://scout.com/college/louisville/Board/103990/Contents/Read-NCAA-appeal-106020881
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
They would...
Also, since the thread apparently was deleted, I'm still wondering if zipp is on house arrest as much as he posts.
Why do some of you want to argue with and call anybody that says they don't trust the NCAA either a UL fan or dumb? You have no clue what the NCAA will do as they are slime, just like Louisville. To act like YOU know it's a 100% done deal is laughable based on the NCAA's history.
Last edited:
Well, looking back thru cases, which I have done, a successful appeal is very rare. So theres that.
You actually looked back thru cases relating to UL's? Please tell me you are joking. Maybe you're a lawyer. The one's I know will argue with anybody, and are never wrong.
Related to UL's? That has no relevance. That's a Zipp angle. My point is, errors are found rarely. The appeals committee can't do anything without an error having happened. Go look for yourself.
Now UL fans are claiming that no sex was provided for during the 2012 and 2013 seasons. Lmao....... I think they'd knock up their own mothers in a deal to keep the banners... sick disgusting bastages.....
Eric Crawford's 6 take aways from the appeal:
1. Car and prostitutes comparisons
2 Precedents?
3 plea for banner seasons
4 UofL's strongfest argument
5 the banner
6 final odds
http://www.wdrb.com/story/36126940/crawford-a-deeper-look-at-u-of-ls-ncaa-appeal-6-takeaways
1. Car and prostitutes comparisons
2 Precedents?
3 plea for banner seasons
4 UofL's strongfest argument
5 the banner
6 final odds
http://www.wdrb.com/story/36126940/crawford-a-deeper-look-at-u-of-ls-ncaa-appeal-6-takeaways
“No team should ever lose a banner. It is a useless sanction that unduly harms the innocent.” - Jay Bilas
Brilliant analysis there Jay. So there is nothing that a player or school could do that would justify losing a banner. Entire seasons if you don't win a championship but not a banner.
Didn't they say it was unfair for the current (2016) players to miss out on the tournament since they weren't involved and were therefore innocent? So if you can't punish a school retroactively and you can't punish them currently what the hell punishment is left?!
i think they actually do have rules against providing sex for players
paying for sex is on a whole new level
the NCAA is going to laugh their A$$E$ off when ul says, we are guilty every year except the banner years
Brian i wonder if part of the immunity agreement the recruits got was not to bring a lawsuit
the last time ul was in serious trouble an error is the only thing that saved them from the potential death penalty
i think this time around the NCAA dotted every I and crossed every T
the appeal is going to fail
Clean the language up.
It's rather pathetic that like no UL fan (except @beasleythecard who is pretty cool) will actually call out and condem all this behavior.
The whole "we only had sex/ hookers during our NON Final Four and Title season" is laughable, disgusting and oozes desperation.
The whole "we only had sex/ hookers during our NON Final Four and Title season" is laughable, disgusting and oozes desperation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Jones crushed this paragraph from UofL's appeal today, this is basically what he said
Unwanted benefit- well we know without question the benefit was sex. UofL claims that it was unwanted. This is objectively and definitively RAPE that UofL is describing. They are using rape as their defense. UofL is saying these recruits came on campus, under their watch, in their basketball dorms and were raped under the supervision of one of their coaches, and UofL’s staff was paying for it all. And then call the whole thing a minor benefit. This is their actual agrument. Absolutely no shame.
Even though the NCAA said: we dont care how much the sex acts were worth, its not the amount of the violation, its the nature of the violation, which they refer to as severe and repugnant, UofL still compares it to a car ride worth 150$. UofL is basically saying: Prostituting minors and a car ride are about the same thing. Absleoluty no shame and or no self awareness.
Student athlete was neither culpable nor received some meaningful benefit?
So UofL does not consider sex meaningful, fine. But the student was not culpable? The players knew what was going on and said nothing. The NCAA report said these sex parties were common knowledge and that at least 3 coachers were aware of them.
As Tim Sullivan states “It’s hard to believe McGee could have staged so many sex parties at Billy Minardi Hall without at least one of the residents recognizing the damage disclosure could do to the basketball program. It’s hard to excuse participating players for failing to alert their coaches to a multi-year scandal that has already cost the university millions of dollars, an NCAA Tournament appearance and an incalculable amount of reputation. Andre McGee deserves to be permanently disassociated from his alma mater and banned from college coaching, but he is not the only one who bears responsibility for this fiasco. At least some U of L players participated, placed their school in peril and remained silent."
Unwanted benefit- well we know without question the benefit was sex. UofL claims that it was unwanted. This is objectively and definitively RAPE that UofL is describing. They are using rape as their defense. UofL is saying these recruits came on campus, under their watch, in their basketball dorms and were raped under the supervision of one of their coaches, and UofL’s staff was paying for it all. And then call the whole thing a minor benefit. This is their actual agrument. Absolutely no shame.
Even though the NCAA said: we dont care how much the sex acts were worth, its not the amount of the violation, its the nature of the violation, which they refer to as severe and repugnant, UofL still compares it to a car ride worth 150$. UofL is basically saying: Prostituting minors and a car ride are about the same thing. Absleoluty no shame and or no self awareness.
Student athlete was neither culpable nor received some meaningful benefit?
So UofL does not consider sex meaningful, fine. But the student was not culpable? The players knew what was going on and said nothing. The NCAA report said these sex parties were common knowledge and that at least 3 coachers were aware of them.
As Tim Sullivan states “It’s hard to believe McGee could have staged so many sex parties at Billy Minardi Hall without at least one of the residents recognizing the damage disclosure could do to the basketball program. It’s hard to excuse participating players for failing to alert their coaches to a multi-year scandal that has already cost the university millions of dollars, an NCAA Tournament appearance and an incalculable amount of reputation. Andre McGee deserves to be permanently disassociated from his alma mater and banned from college coaching, but he is not the only one who bears responsibility for this fiasco. At least some U of L players participated, placed their school in peril and remained silent."
He is just saying that , be cause his UNCheat boss that runs ESPN told him to !
How did so many of the mafia stay out of prison? Basically dealing with same type of people at UL. Got to believe they probably have the money to buy their way out and certainly have no qualms to lie about things.
So they had a bunch of players receiving benefits they wasn't allowed making them INELIGIBLE. They played a ton of games they should not have played in. So UL is saying had they known it, they would have suspended them for a game or two and then they would let them come back and play.
How does this connect with them not suspending them and allowing them to continue and play? IF they really didn't know about them, what does that have to do with playing inelgible players. It happened, and can't be taken back.
It's like UL is saying that they are good people and if they had known about it they would have been mad and suspended them. What does that have ANYTHING to do about it? In reality, there is a pretty good chance they knew about it and just kept quite.
No, it's about NCAA reinstatement after a student-athlete has received impermissible benefits. Only one, Mathiang, still had eligibility if he was reinstated.
Similar threads
