College Basketball Random Chatter

• Prescott

  The key phrase in Parrish's article is :
  
  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."
  
  I don't buy ignorance of the rule as an excuse.That makes the consequences of breaking the rule totally subjective. Some teams get punished while others get a pass.Just because everybody else does it doesn't make it right. If you commit a crime you should pay the fine. Memphis did, duke didn't.Rec does not have to worry. duke will get favorable treatment from the NCAA. Afterall, pleading ignorance works for duke.
• reclegend22

  

  Prescott;1291030 wrote:The key phrase in Parrish's article is :
  
  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."
  
  I don't buy ignorance of the rule as an excuse.That makes the consequences of breaking the rule totally subjective. Some teams get punished while others get a pass.Just because everybody else does it doesn't make it right. If you commit a crime you should pay the fine. Memphis did, duke didn't.Rec does not have to worry. duke will get favorable treatment from the NCAA. Afterall, pleading ignorance works for duke.

  I think you are failing to recognize the key reason why the Maggette situation is different from what happened at Memphis, and from other similar instances involving player ineligibility as dictated by the NCAA. What Gary's article conveniently stares straight through is the fact that Duke did not benefit from the gifts Maggette received from Myron Piggie, because Piggie was acting alone, solely on behalf of his AAU club for which he was trying to acquire high-profile talent by paying them. Memphis directly benefited from the phony SAT test score that Derrick Rose submitted to the university. Without that test score, he is never eligible to play basketball for the Tigers. As a result of that, it never mattered whether John Calipari and his staff knew or not. Rose was not a legitimate student at Memphis.
  
  Maggette, on the other hand, went to Duke on his own volition and without the aid of any outside force. That is why the NCAA cleared Duke. The difference between the two scenarios is pretty clear. The only instance in which Duke should have been sanctioned is if the institution had known about the gifts all along, and Duke didn't. It was the lack of any evidence whatsoever, not the favorable treatment of the NCAA wanting to give a blueblood a break, that proved this.
• Prescott

  While 20 teams were forced to vacate NCAA appearances during the 1990s for use of ineligible players, the two most pertinent cases involve Missouri and Jevon Crudup in 1994 and Massachusetts and Marcus Camby in 1996.
  Like Maggette, both players received payments from either agents or people affiliated with agents. Both rightfully were deemed to have violated the NCAA's standards of amateurism and thus made their teams ineligible for competition.
  When Missouri turned in its case in the spring of 1996, it took the NCAA less than four months to find the Tigers guilty, strip them of their 1994 NCAA Elite Eight appearance and demand the repayment of $97,000 in revenue.
  In March of 1997 UMass turned over its case, and just seven weeks later the NCAA vacated the school's 1996 Final Four appearance, took away 35 victories and asked for restitution of $160,000 in revenue.
  In both cases, the schools and its coaches were exonerated of any wrongdoing.
  
  Seems like the same scenario to me.
• reclegend22

  

  You twist a good tale, but all you have proven with your collage of plagiarism is that you still do not or are unwilling to comprehend why the Corey Maggette situation is different from all of the other cases you have highlighted in your anti-Duke march. Maggette took the money before he was enrolled at Duke, and for reasons that were unconnected to the university. The situations at Missouri and Massachusetts involved players, Jevon Crudup (whom I am totally confident that you had never heard of before five hours ago, or at least had completely forgotten) and Marcus Camby (I am satisfied you know who this is), who accepted gifts while in the middle of their participation as college athletes.
  
  Per the NCAA on how player ineligibility is determined through the lens of the Maggette situation:
  

  NCAA wrote:"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."

  
  
  Again, the differences here are pretty evident. There was no realistic way for Duke to monitor Maggette's actions while he was an underclassman in high school and still being recruited by a multitude of schools at the time. Mike Krzyzewski and Duke University were not his keeper. It should also be noted that Maggette was given by his AAU coach a flamboyant sum of $2,000 over a period of time, which Maggette has indicated was used primarily to pay for traveling expenses and other such essentials (this would certainly lend to the idea that, as a 16-year-old kid, Maggette probably wouldn't have thought that taking a small amount of money from an altruistic and nice summer team coach who was looking out for his players was all that big a deal).
  
  The actions of Marcus Camby, however, which included receiving more than $40,000 and a slew of hookers, were the responsibility of UMass as soon as he stepped foot on campus and began playing for the Minutemen.
• Azubuike24

  

  Hopefully this thread gets shut down soon...
• Laley23

  

  Azubuike24;1292221 wrote:Hopefully this thread gets shut down soon...

  I am letting them have their fun until Friday when official practice starts. lol
• Prescott

  1.I gave you more credit than I should have. Plagiarism, I think not.Any reasonable person would know I was not claiming those excerpts as my own.
  
  2.Dirty is dirty. If the NCAA would have known about the exchange of money would Maggette have been allowed to participate?
  
  3."Should Have Known'-what a convenient phrase that allows the NCAA to maintain their double standard.
  
  4. The amount of the money that exchanged hands is irrelevant as is whatever the money was used to buy. Travel expenses....really!!! Maggette indicated??? He didn't even tell the truth when he was first confronted and now we take his word. That is some funny stuff..
  
  5. If I need to be graded on my college basketball knowledge I will be sure to contact you.
  
  6. "who accepted gifts while in the middle of their participation as college athletes." Does this indict Lance Thomas? He received the flamboyant sum of $70,000.00 given to him in the form of jewelry while in school.
• reclegend22

  

  1. Deflecting. (Plagiarism was just the word I decided to substitute for blatant overuse of other people's opinions. It was more a tongue-cheek thing.)
  
  2. If the NCAA had known about the money from the start, the entire situation would have been different.
  
  3. This is a pretty clear component of the NCAA's decision when comparing the Duke and UMass cases. At Duke, the situation involved a player who took a small sum of travel money while an underclassman in high school and still being recruited nationally. At UMass, the situation involved a player who took over 40 grand and oodles of prostitutes while playing for the Minutemen in his spare time.
  
  4. The point of referencing the amount of money involved in the Maggettee case is that it's much easier to believe that Maggette could have construed a relatively small gift of money from his AAU coach as not being against any NCAA rules, especially since he probably thought that his coach was just helping him get to games and pay for other such expenses, than it is to believe that Camby believed the same while counting Benjamins and macking hookers.
  
  5. Again, wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. The Crudup comment was just a little sarcasm directed at the digging you had obviously been doing to find dirt on Duke. I applaud your determination over the past six or so years of this pressing campaign. You are definitely not a quitter.
  
  6. Pure conjecture. You have zero idea of where Lance Thomas got that money nor do you have any knowledge of any specific details of the case at all. To phrase it differently, you have no idea at all.
• Prescott

  "To phrase it differently, you have no idea at all."
  Let us see what we know.
  
  1. Thomas bought 100k worth of jewelry while a student/ athlete at duke.
  
  2. Thomas paid 30k, but was sued for 67k by the jeweler for non-payment.
  
  3.Thomas satisfied his debt, but with a confidentiality clause.
  
  4. Wonder what he is hiding?
  
  BTW, why would Maggette get shafted by Piggie? Piggie admitted to dispersing 36k.He admitted giving that money to five players.Why should we believe that Maggette got less than the others? Take Maggette's word? C'mon.