love this selective stat reporting:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400597396

follow the link to see the graphic listing calipari's three 26-0 starts. conveniently, espn places an asterisk next to our 2008 tigers for the vacated season, but they fail to do the same to cal's 1996 minutemen. i sent my complaint in. give them hell tiger fans!

(02-17-2015 10:57 PM)tiger-viper Wrote:  love this selective stat reporting:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400597396

follow the link to see the graphic listing calipari's three 26-0 starts. conveniently, espn places an asterisk next to our 2008 tigers for the vacated season, but they fail to do the same to cal's 1996 minutemen. i sent my complaint in. give them hell tiger fans!

UMass' season was not vacated, only the tourney. The graphic is correct.

Oops

Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

did camby get paid during the ncaa tournament only? that's some horsesh*t right there.

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

This. I wouldn't let Lipman rep me in traffic court.

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

What idiots

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

(02-18-2015 11:01 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

amen

(02-18-2015 11:01 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

bullspit. you have no recourse in ncaa infraction decisions. they are judge, jury and executioner. you cant take the rulings to court. Alabama tried and their dream team of attorneys just shrugged their shoulders and said there was no where to go

(02-18-2015 11:27 AM)btiger Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:01 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

bullspit. you have no recourse in ncaa infraction decisions. they are judge, jury and executioner. you cant take the rulings to court. Alabama tried and their dream team of attorneys just shrugged their shoulders and said there was no where to go

Jerry Tarkanian 2.5 million

(02-18-2015 11:27 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:27 AM)btiger Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:01 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:07 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Their lawyers were better than ours. I still cringe every time I read the transcript of our hearing.

To paraphrase:

"Do you admit you played the whole season with an ineligible player?"

"Oh, yeah, sure."

Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

bullspit. you have no recourse in ncaa infraction decisions. they are judge, jury and executioner. you cant take the rulings to court. Alabama tried and their dream team of attorneys just shrugged their shoulders and said there was no where to go

Jerry Tarkanian 2.5 million

that had nothing to do with ncaa ruling. that was a personal lawsuit.

you sheep should know better than to argue with me

(02-18-2015 11:28 AM)btiger Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:27 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:27 AM)btiger Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:01 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 10:58 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  Yep. I always felt, from the very start, we should have had big time outside law firm rep'ing the school. Never understood why we didn't.

Ballen or Farese woulda got our banner up and we might have got half the money back.

bullspit. you have no recourse in ncaa infraction decisions. they are judge, jury and executioner. you cant take the rulings to court. Alabama tried and their dream team of attorneys just shrugged their shoulders and said there was no where to go

Jerry Tarkanian 2.5 million

that had nothing to do with ncaa ruling. that was a personal lawsuit.

you sheep should know better than to argue with me

Ballen and Farese would have made it look like the NCAA had a vendetta against RC. Lapides would have testified on his behalf frankly.

rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

(02-18-2015 11:34 AM)btiger Wrote:  rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

I trust Ballen and Farese. That Giannini dude is gonna walk. The NCAA and all their skeletons are small potatoes. Hell Donna Shelala got em to back down.

(02-18-2015 11:34 AM)btiger Wrote:  rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

Unless your argument is that our legal team would have thrown the NCAA into a rage by reiterating that the University considered him eligible based on the clearing house's guidance, I can see no reason why the admission was made in such a thoughtless and damaging way.

It ended the case.

A lot of very knowledgable people on this board insist that it was a lost cause from the beginning, but that is a different argument than one defending the legal team. The hearing went poorly, and I'm not surprised that the University wasn't keen on having the transcript released.

(02-18-2015 12:02 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:34 AM)btiger Wrote:  rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

Unless your argument is that our legal team would have thrown the NCAA into a rage by reiterating that the University considered him eligible based on the clearing house's guidance, I can see no reason why the admission was made in such a thoughtless and damaging way.

It ended the case.

A lot of very knowledgable people on this board insist that it was a lost cause from the beginning, but that is a different argument than one defending the legal team. The hearing went poorly, and I'm not surprised that the University wasn't keen on having the transcript released.

in legal terms, we had "bad facts" on our side

(02-18-2015 12:02 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:34 AM)btiger Wrote:  rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

Unless your argument is that our legal team would have thrown the NCAA into a rage by reiterating that the University considered him eligible based on the clearing house's guidance, I can see no reason why the admission was made in such a thoughtless and damaging way.

It ended the case.

A lot of very knowledgable people on this board insist that it was a lost cause from the beginning, but that is a different argument than one defending the legal team. The hearing went poorly, and I'm not surprised that the University wasn't keen on having the transcript released.

I don't know what happened in the hearing, maybe other threats, but I know according to my wife who has been dealing with the Clearinghouse from day one of its inception, a school cannot be at fault for a player that has been cleared by them.

End of discussion. Selective enforcement against us, but no looks at Kentucky now or Kansas back then.

In fact, if Derrick Rose had signed with Illinois you never would have heard of this.

(02-18-2015 12:13 PM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 12:02 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:34 AM)btiger Wrote:  rc would have had to file a personal suit. by agreeing to be a member of the ncaa you forfeit any right to take their enforcement findings to a court of law.

Unless your argument is that our legal team would have thrown the NCAA into a rage by reiterating that the University considered him eligible based on the clearing house's guidance, I can see no reason why the admission was made in such a thoughtless and damaging way.

It ended the case.

A lot of very knowledgable people on this board insist that it was a lost cause from the beginning, but that is a different argument than one defending the legal team. The hearing went poorly, and I'm not surprised that the University wasn't keen on having the transcript released.

I don't know what happened in the hearing, maybe other threats, but I know according to my wife who has been dealing with the Clearinghouse from day one of its inception, a school cannot be at fault for a player that has been cleared by them.

End of discussion. Selective enforcement against us, but no looks at Kentucky.

mayby there were facts you weren't aware of.

I cant remember details, but didnt some of the most important characters in this flustercluck agree to six figure settlements in a civil suit to avoid having to testify under oath?