College Basketball Random Chatter

• Prescott

  The details of the transaction?? Really. That should take about ten minutes if everybody wanted to cooperate.
  
  Thomas to jeweler:I have 30k in cash and I can get another 70K in a couple of weeks.I need some bling. Can you hook me up?
  
  Jeweler: Sure, why not. Do you have a job?
  
  Thomas: No, I play basketball for duke.
  
  Jeweler: Are you near graduation?
  
  Thomas: Yes.
  
  Jeweler: It is our policy to extend 70k in credit to all duke students who are near graduation?
  
  Thomas: Yea, I was told me that.
  
  Jeweler: What would like for 100k ?
  
  Give me a break.I'm sure some plausible explanation will be given and everything will go away.
• reclegend22

  

  Yeah, that's probably exactly how it went down. Right after Lance was handed a briefcase of hundreds from Happy off Blue Chips.
• Azubuike24

  

  Well, this thread is awesome...
  
  Good news...in a week, I'm going to start a new one for the upcoming season as this thread will hit a year old.
• reclegend22

  

  I thought things were really starting to pick up. I mean, we've had at least tens of posts since the end of the season.
• Azubuike24

  

  Duke entered the convo, which cued you and Prescott to banter back and forth. Eh, whatever it takes I guess...
  
  Thanks Lance Thomas for making the CBB discussion on Ohio Chatter ramp up!
• reclegend22

  

  I was being facetious.
  
  But nice zing. Yeah, way to go, Lance. Ha.
• Laley23

  

  to be honest, there just isnt ever anything to discuss in the off-season.
  
  Only "convo" you could get is OSU fans. But they arent as into it as UK/Duke/IU/etc. We (I assume) get our fill on the team boards.
• Azubuike24

  

  It's basically recruiting, coaching changes, NCAA ruling and upcoming season/schedules. Things should heat up.
• reclegend22

  

  Laley23;1288154 wrote:to be honest, there just isnt ever anything to discuss in the off-season.
  
  Only "convo" you could get is OSU fans. But they arent as into it as UK/Duke/IU/etc. We (I assume) get our fill on the team boards.

  Good point. And you would be correct in assuming that. It's hard for me to even think about not having that type of resource to gather the majority of my information from. I would go crazy without it. But, if I were born during an earlier era where fan message boards were nonexistent, I guess I wouldn't have known otherwise.
• Prescott

  "Right after Lance was handed a briefcase of hundreds from Happy off Blue Chips."
  
  I thought Myron Piggie was duke's bagman.
• reclegend22

  

  Prescott;1289261 wrote:"Right after Lance was handed a briefcase of hundreds from Happy off Blue Chips."
  
  I thought Myron Piggie was duke's bagman.

  I don't care if Piggie gave Corey Maggette a helicopter, you and I both know the Corey Maggette situation is irrelevant. Myron Piggie gave the money to Maggette before Corey ever stepped foot on Duke's campus and did so only as a means to persuade Corey to join Piggie's travel summer team. The sum of money that changed hands had nothing to do with Duke and Duke did not even know that it had occurred. Piggie has admitted as much. The NCAA then ruled that because the incident happened before Maggette was enrolled at Duke, Duke was therefore not culpable and deserving of any punishment.
  
  And before you bring up Derrick Rose, the scenarios are different. The test cheating scandal that Rose was a participant in had a direct affect on Rose being admitted into Memphis. The thousands bucks and free playing gear that Piggie gave to Maggette had no connection nor benefit to Duke.
• Midstate01

  

  But wouldn't that make him in eligible to have played at duke?
• reclegend22

  

  Midstate01;1289891 wrote:But wouldn't that make him in eligible to have played at duke?

  It would have if Maggette would have been been committed to Duke at the time his AAU coach gave him the money or if the Duke staff had known that the money had been given to him prior to his Duke career without reporting it. Had Duke found out about the transaction while he was at Duke University, the NCAA would have required the Blue Devils coaching staff to remove him from the team or forfeit any games he had taken part in.
  
  People love to champion Piggie as Duke's big dark secret, but the fact remains that due to the reasons listed above, the NCAA found Duke not to be guilty of anything.
• Azubuike24

  

  You're off on this one. Not because Duke escaped, but if you read the ruling on Rose and Memphis, they set a precedent. They basically stated there is a "zero tolerance policy." Even if the ineligibility preceeded the participation in college games or even preceeded entrance into an NCAA institution, they can go back and penalize that school. That's why they did with Rose. Rose was CLEARED by the NCAA. They told Memphis they could play him. Then they go back and penalize Memphis for playing him. The argument many make is...why was this ruled in 2008 against Memphis and NOT against the hundreds of known situations (and I'm sure thousands more uninvestigated/unknown) that happened previous? Also, why isn't the rule being applied with 100% enforcement since Memphis? If so, technically, any act that could cause a player to lose his amateur status could cost the school he participated for. It's one of the reasons many at UK are actually glad Enes Kanter was not allowed to play in 2011. It would just give them one more avenue to possibly use to take down, what is currently, a juggernaut (and one that nobody likes).
• reclegend22

  

  Not an expert here, but my take on things.
  
  I understand you are trying to make an argument for the NCAA's apparent proclivity for "selective punishment," but, with regards to how it relates to the Maggette situation, I maintain my position as to why Duke was ultimately not penalized and why Memphis was. Duke was not hit with sanctions due to the fact that the gifts Maggette received before he committed to play for the Blue Devils had no connection whatsoever to anything or anyone at Duke University and did not in any way benefit the program. The NCAA's "no tolerance" policy that you speak of, from what I understand of it, would have only affected Duke if the cash payment that Maggette received had benefited Duke (i.e. had it been paid by a "booster" on Duke's behalf in order to encourage Maggette to become a Blue Devil). In that case, you are correct, it would not have mattered if Duke didn't know about the transaction or that the transaction had happened before Maggette enrolled at the school. Duke would have benefited from the payment as a result of it being used to persuade Maggette to take his services to Duke.
  
  As I see it, where the Maggette and Rose situations differ is that the score of the SAT test that Rose had taken for him by another student, as a result of Rose having failed to achieve the score he needed to be admitted to Memphis on his own on three previous occasions, resulted in his acceptance to Memphis. The NCAA may have cleared Rose to play initially, but, once it was confirmed that the test score was in fact a sham, Memphis was in trouble as Rose was at that moment no longer a legally enrolled student at the university and thus his participation on the basketball team not within the rules of eligibility.
  
  Should the NCAA have penalized Memphis if the university really did have no knowledge of what went down with regard to Rose? I personally do not believe so. But, because Memphis ultimately benefitted from Rose's bogus SAT test score, the NCAA had the right to make that call.
• Prescott

  Yes, a case was brought against Duke. • Yes, Maggette admitted taking the money.
  Still, it took nearly four years -- and a push from Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel, who wrote a splendid column about the situation at the 2004 Final Four -- for the NCAA to address the Maggette situation. In what can best be described as a strange press conference, NCAA president Myles Brand called NCAA Vice President of Enforcement David Price to the podium in San Antonio.
  
  Here was his explanation: "Our executive regulations specify that if an individual plays while ineligible in the NCAA championships, we can either vacate the team's participation in the championship and/or assess a fine for the money that they received. 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. After a lengthy investigation, we came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Maggette knew or should have known, and we believe firmly that the institution did not know and should not have known."
  
  
  How the NCAA could determine that Maggette didn't know he was taking money from Piggie is tough to understand, particularly when Maggette had long ago testified under oath that he, you know, took money from Piggie. Hilarious, right? But the key point is how the NCAA basically said Duke wasn't penalized because it did not know and should not have known that Maggette was ineligible.
  
  
  To that point, it's important to remember that the NCAA has made no allegation in the Memphis case that the school knew or should have known that Rose was ineligible, but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter. The NCAA is now throwing around the term "strict liability" and explaining how the only thing that matters is that the Tigers used an ineligible player, and that's why the school's Final Four banner is coming down just 16 months after earning it.
  
  
  Meanwhile, Duke's 1999 Final Four banner still flies high.
  
  
  And when people claim the NCAA uses selective enforcement, this is what they're talking about.
  
  duke used an ineligible player to win an NCAA Championship.End of story.
• reclegend22

  

  You can copy and paste Gary Parrish's opinions all you want. Fact is, Gary is in the business of pumping out stories that draw in readers. "Duke" and "bags of cash" makes for a tremendous story, don't you think? Even if his opinion completely disregards what the NCAA states actually happened.
  
  Here's a brain teaser for you: Give me one scenario in college basketball history where a university was given harsh sanctions (i.e. vacated banners) for a player who took small amounts of gifts from a party unassociated with that university, without those gifts providing any benefit whatsoever to the university, prior to that player being enrolled at or connected in any way to that institution?
• Azubuike24

  

  I agree with you on WHY Memphis was punished. The NCAA made that clear. What bothers me is...the reasoning. The real reasoning was, in my words, as follows:
  
  "Derrick Rose is in the NBA, we have no authority over him nor the individuals who brought this situation on. Therefore, we'll go down the line and punish Memphis."
  
  Obviously that is an extreme simplification, but they basically needed a scapegoat because the situation had received national attention and couldn't go unpunished. The same can be said for other situations, including the Ohio State scandal under Tressel. I'm also not saying Memphis (or even John Calipari) didn't walk a very fine line, but the Memphis ruling is just so inconsistent with how the NCAA handled these situations prior and how they have handled them since.
  
  Are you familiar with Kansas and Darrell Arthur? Same national title. Same season. Similar circumstances. Barely discussed.
• reclegend22

  

  Azubuike24;1290309 wrote:I agree with you on WHY Memphis was punished. The NCAA made that clear. What bothers me is...the reasoning. The real reasoning was, in my words, as follows:
  
  "Derrick Rose is in the NBA, we have no authority over him nor the individuals who brought this situation on. Therefore, we'll go down the line and punish Memphis."
  
  Obviously that is an extreme simplification, but they basically needed a scapegoat because the situation had received national attention and couldn't go unpunished. The same can be said for other situations, including the Ohio State scandal under Tressel. I'm also not saying Memphis (or even John Calipari) didn't walk a very fine line, but the Memphis ruling is just so inconsistent with how the NCAA handled these situations prior and how they have handled them since.
  
  Are you familiar with Kansas and Darrell Arthur? Same national title. Same season. Similar circumstances. Barely discussed.

  Somewhat familiar. The smoke surrounding Arthur is that he supposedly got credit for a class he didn't actually take in high school and therefore should not have been eligible for enrollment at KU, correct?
  
  Now that we (appear to be) in agreement that the Duke situation is a different animal than what happened at Memphis (at least in terms of how Duke did not benefit from the gifts that Maggette received prior to signing on as a Blue Devil), I definitely side with you on the inconsistency that the NCAA has shown over the years, and particularly with regard to the Memphis-KU similarities.
  
  This is going to sound oversimplified as well, but I honestly think it comes down to the old refrain "where there's smoke there's fire." Whether ever culpable or not, and he has never individually been found to be, John Calipari had found himself under similar clouds of suspicion in the past and I think the NCAA (perhaps wrongfully) looked at that pattern and decided to act on it. Again, I do not personally think that Memphis should have had its wins vacated if the university had no prior knowledge of what Rose did. I really don't. And there is no doubt that something needs to be done to address the NCAA's wild abandon when it comes randomly assigning punishments.
• Azubuike24

  

  Maybe the resident KU fan can chime in if he sees the thread, but Arthur basically had grades falsified and false credits given in high school. It's not the SAT, but it's similar, in that this would've directly correlated with him being eligible to play in college. If it turns out he should've been ineligible, regardless of whether KU knew, by default any participation he had should have cost them. It would be the same as Rose, an after-the-fact vacated title and win total.
  
  I think most agree the Memphis ruling was one thing, but to then turn around and also bust the National Champion would make it look awful for the NCAA to have both the winner and runner-up accomplishments vacated. Again, I see their reasoning trying to save face, but why not apply the rule the same? The NCAA looked into Eric Bledsoe for the same reason and I defended UK on that. They were investigating Bledsoe's Sophomore and Junior year transcripts, BEFORE he transferred high schools and before UK even recruited him. However, had something been found, they could have retroactively ruled him ineligible and thus, forfeited any accomplishments the school had with him as a player.
  
  In one regard, it seems unfair to the schools. In the other, since the NCAA can't police these matters in-full, especially with AAU programs, relationships with shoe companies, transferring high schools, etc...it's their way of basically telling schools to watch their backs, regardless of what things appear to be on the surface. It's not really fair, IMO, but it's the only possible way they can control things without actually having to CONTROL THEM.
• Azubuike24

  

  Just to add Rec, I tend to not even consider these things all that meaningful as anyone who has participated in high-level athletics will tell you that these things only matter on paper. Corey Maggette still played at Duke and at the time he played, Duke, all of their opponents and everyone else in the NCAA assumed he was doing so without issues. Same with Rose at Memphis. Kansas took the court that night having to beat Memphis with Derrick Rose. Going back and retroactively making these decisions, sometimes years after it actually took place, is doing so without regard to many variables that go unaccounted for.
  
  For instance, what if Rose had been injured and missed the 2nd half of that season? Would Memphis have ever made a run? Would Rose have been a 1st Team All-American? Would the matter have received the attention it did, and would the investigation have concluded what it did? You never know. In a perfect world, none of those things should matter as the rule should be black or white and applied equally in every situation.
  
  Down with the NCAA...
• reclegend22

  

  Agree across the board.
  
  To bring back up the Lance Thomas case for a moment: Even if it did in fact turn out that Thomas had received a loan from that NYC jeweler based solely on his status as an athlete for Duke and the expectation that he'd become a pro, the rogue actions of one kid, who probably wouldn't have even known he was breaking any sort of rule if he had paid for the jewelry with his own cash up front and then was offered a loan by the jeweler to pay the rest off later, should not have any affect whatsoever on the program he plays for or any of the successes of him or his teammates if the activity in question had nothing to do with nor any benefit to the school he represents. (That is assuming that the jeweler was only acting on behalf of itself for its own benefit and was in no way affiliated to Duke or boosters of Duke.) As you say, major sanctions in that sort of scenario, which are completely unrelated to the endeavors of the program being punished, are utterly meaningless.
• Prescott

  Go ahead and blame the messenger that dos not change the facts. Maggette was dirty and he played for duke. End of story.
• Azubuike24

  

  Prescott;1290548 wrote:Go ahead and blame the messenger that dos not change the facts. Maggette was dirty and he played for duke. End of story.

  ...and you can find dirty players at every school in every sport at every level if you looked hard enough. Listen, I don't like Duke but the Maggette thing is brought up weekly on UK forums and it's stupid. He was an NBA player and played at Duke, which you can argue, is the only reason the situation is even public.
• reclegend22

  

  "Go ahead and blame the messenger that dos not change the facts. Maggette was dirty and he played for duke. End of story."
  
  I take it you are not excellent at brainteasers?