(03-30-2015 04:02 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  If I had to guess the convo with NCAA went like this,
NCAA: "You're going to appeal our decision about Rose? Ok, get ready because we're going to turn your athletic department upside down looking for whatever else we can find."
Us: "Umm never mind, we'll take the banner down."

Bingo! Someone, whom I shall not mention because I will get another warning for slander, had skeletons in his closet that would not bear the light of day. And such skeletons were as much personal as professional. The wool was being pulled over the fans' eyes as much as another other authority.

(03-30-2015 04:22 PM)gusrob Wrote:  I had always heard the named party was Calipari/Rose/University of Memphis. The 3 parties though no longer associated were stripped of the wins from the 2008 season and forced to pay $500,000. It was between the 3 parties to determine how to pay and D.Rose and Cal shared the $500,00 [prob provided by UK booster(s)]. How is Cal "not named" in either NCAA investigation? I keep hearing this on Mike and Mike, Dick "I know nothing but I yell Baby" Vitale, In game commentators, etc. He was. And how does he keep the wins?

And folks, I don't give a flying eff that he was our coach, he took us to new heights, blah blah blah. If we took a hit, why doesn't he? He was driving the sunken ship and ended up dry and squeaky clean. And the very people that claim to be working toward cleaning up the sport coughcoughJayBilas applaud him THIS YEAR. GAG! People of so called news sources do their best to keep facts out of the story.

Remember the money that had to be paid to a group of boosters who were "let down" by the school? Now, that was an interesting lawsuit.

(03-30-2015 07:36 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:02 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  If I had to guess the convo with NCAA went like this,
NCAA: "You're going to appeal our decision about Rose? Ok, get ready because we're going to turn your athletic department upside down looking for whatever else we can find."
Us: "Umm never mind, we'll take the banner down."

Bingo! Someone, whom I shall not mention because I will get another warning for slander, had skeletons in his closet that would not bear the light of day. And such skeletons were as much personal as professional. The wool was being pulled over the fans' eyes as much as another other authority.

Amen. Thanks for saying it.

(03-30-2015 01:51 PM)80sTiger Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/sports...imers.html

"Calipari, a voluble Chevy salesman of a recruiter, later moved to Memphis, which ended up vacating a lode of victories because of violations of N.C.A.A. rules, all of which Calipari said shocked him. Then he decamped to Kentucky."

Saw that in the NYT and wondered how long before it appeared here.

I guess we liked him while he was here. The bubble was bound to burst. More coming later, I'm sure.

Stay tuned.

(03-30-2015 07:32 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  Are you talking about Sheri? Many judges are judges just BECAUSE they couldn't make it as lawyers.

I know one in Memphis. Fits him perfectly.

(03-30-2015 03:51 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:19 PM)idroot4russia Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:54 PM)paulnatlanta Wrote:  Oh common dude. The NCAA clearinghouse approved Rose twice. The is no way a university can police guys prior to admission to the school. There is something called "freedom" which allows individuals to make choices the NCAA does not sanction.

Seems like if there were nothing else to hide the school would be raising hell about this injustice, but instead they just quietly removed the banner and stored it away in a closet at the AOB.

The scope of RC's ambition probably didn't extend much beyond making sure his dentures were glued in properly, and the idiot lawyer admitted that Rose was ineligible.

That "idiot" lawyer is now a Federal judge...and if you ever want to find out how little power you have in this world, lock horns with one of them.

I haven't combed the transcript at all, but will point out that it is a pretty common legal strategy to give them what they already have (ie Rose's ineligibility). The kicker in my limited understanding of this case has always been the out of nowhere application of strict liability. If teh school had no way of KNOWING that Rose was ineligible conceding that point wouldn't normally be that damaging...

Federal judge or not, she's a damn fool.

(03-30-2015 03:00 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:54 PM)paulnatlanta Wrote:  Oh common dude. The NCAA clearinghouse approved Rose twice. The is no way a university can police guys prior to admission to the school. There is something called "freedom" which allows individuals to make choices the NCAA does not sanction.

3X

(03-30-2015 03:19 PM)idroot4russia Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:54 PM)paulnatlanta Wrote:  Oh common dude. The NCAA clearinghouse approved Rose twice. The is no way a university can police guys prior to admission to the school. There is something called "freedom" which allows individuals to make choices the NCAA does not sanction.

Seems like if there were nothing else to hide the school would be raising hell about this injustice, but instead they just quietly removed the banner and stored it away in a closet at the AOB.

That is not true. The school vigorously appealed the NCAA's decision. But, at the end of the day, they are judge, jury, and executioner.

Grantland's Bill Simmons on James Young & Cal:

Quote:After last season’s run to the NCAA championship game, Young vaulted himself into the middle of the first round. There’s at least a chance this will look completely insane a few years from now.

Young has played in just 30 NBA games, averaged 3.2 points and shooting 26 percent from 3. He’s better in the D-League (21.6 ppg, 47 percent shooting), but it’s a complete toss-up from here. Young is only 19, so at least he’s got time on his side.

As for Young’s draft stock last year: This is one area in which John Calipari doesn’t get nearly enough credit. It’s not just that he’s pooling McDonald’s All Americans and sending them to the top of the draft. All the winning also benefits guys like Young — or Marquis Teague, Brandon Knight, and Daniel Orton — transforming fringe first-rounders into NBA prospects who get contracts that might not have been there otherwise.

...This is what Cal has created for himself. Players notice this stuff and I think if Cal never cheated again, he'd still continue to do what he's doing.

(03-30-2015 01:51 PM)80sTiger Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/sports...imers.html

"Calipari, a voluble Chevy salesman of a recruiter, later moved to Memphis, which ended up vacating a lode of victories because of violations of N.C.A.A. rules, all of which Calipari said shocked him. Then he decamped to Kentucky."

That dude has a lot of butt hurt.

Just win, baby.

(03-30-2015 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:51 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:19 PM)idroot4russia Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:54 PM)paulnatlanta Wrote:  Oh common dude. The NCAA clearinghouse approved Rose twice. The is no way a university can police guys prior to admission to the school. There is something called "freedom" which allows individuals to make choices the NCAA does not sanction.

Seems like if there were nothing else to hide the school would be raising hell about this injustice, but instead they just quietly removed the banner and stored it away in a closet at the AOB.

The scope of RC's ambition probably didn't extend much beyond making sure his dentures were glued in properly, and the idiot lawyer admitted that Rose was ineligible.

That "idiot" lawyer is now a Federal judge...and if you ever want to find out how little power you have in this world, lock horns with one of them.

I haven't combed the transcript at all, but will point out that it is a pretty common legal strategy to give them what they already have (ie Rose's ineligibility). The kicker in my limited understanding of this case has always been the out of nowhere application of strict liability. If teh school had no way of KNOWING that Rose was ineligible conceding that point wouldn't normally be that damaging...

Well the idiot lawyer was flustered on the stand and caved in. Good for him that he became a judge.

you are badly misinformed.....which is a polite way of saying something else

(03-30-2015 03:19 PM)idroot4russia Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:54 PM)paulnatlanta Wrote:  Oh common dude. The NCAA clearinghouse approved Rose twice. The is no way a university can police guys prior to admission to the school. There is something called "freedom" which allows individuals to make choices the NCAA does not sanction.

Seems like if there were nothing else to hide the school would be raising hell about this injustice, but instead they just quietly removed the banner and stored it away in a closet at the AOB.

In putting 2 and 2 together and trying to use common sense, this is the conclusion I have come to as well.

(03-31-2015 10:18 AM)btiger Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Well the idiot lawyer was flustered on the stand and caved in. Good for him that he became a judge.

you are badly misinformed.....which is a polite way of saying something else

Why was the lawyer on the stand? Most American court proceedings (quasi or real) prohibit the lawyer testifying as a witness. I hope he doesn't think our barristers still wear wigs, too.

When it comes to Rose (and every other NCAA decision really) there's just simply way to much motivated reasoning on every side of the issue to discuss it rationally. The way things stood, the only way for Rose to "restore" his eligibility once the ETS took his test score would have been to go before the infractions committee and subject himself to questioning about the SAT. For whatever reason, he didn't want to do that. End of story. Everything else is window dressing.

The kid down at Mississippi a couple of years ago was declared ineligible when his scores were canceled, even though he hired an attorney to respond to the ETS inquiries, but the attorney failed to file a timely response, and even though the player maintained through the entire process that the scores were legitimately obtained. So at this point I'm no longer sure that Rose being an active participant in the response would have been enough (although I'm not clear on whether the player at Mississippi played after he knew that there was an issue with the scores or not, and that might be something they considered).

What on earth is that?

Thi is all news to me. Leave it to the New York Times to publish a fresh, hard hitting story no one had ever fathomed before.

(03-31-2015 12:42 PM)FarFromHome Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Well the idiot lawyer was flustered on the stand and caved in. Good for him that he became a judge.

Honest mistake.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: But I want you all to address, both sides, the issue of if either one doesn't have a valid test score -- let me give you an example. We have situations that come up from time to time before this committee where something is learned after the fact, such as person actually played sports at another institution. Nobody knew, but that person didn't have eligibility remaining, so they were ineligible. If you have a test score that is invalidated, you didn't have the scores to be admitted to begin with. Where am I wrong?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn't have the score. UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn't matter.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don't believe -- we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn't do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn't have an admissible entry qualification.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That's correct. We have not contested that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn't suggest that they were.

(03-31-2015 01:33 PM)Rob Wrote:  What on earth is that?

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/loc...t-tennesse

(03-31-2015 03:43 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:42 PM)FarFromHome Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Well the idiot lawyer was flustered on the stand and caved in. Good for him that he became a judge.

Honest mistake.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: But I want you all to address, both sides, the issue of if either one doesn't have a valid test score -- let me give you an example. We have situations that come up from time to time before this committee where something is learned after the fact, such as person actually played sports at another institution. Nobody knew, but that person didn't have eligibility remaining, so they were ineligible. If you have a test score that is invalidated, you didn't have the scores to be admitted to begin with. Where am I wrong?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn't have the score. UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn't matter.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don't believe -- we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn't do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn't have an admissible entry qualification.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That's correct. We have not contested that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn't suggest that they were.

Good gravy, that's embarrassing.

Talk about getting run over.

Jeebus

(03-31-2015 03:57 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:43 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:42 PM)FarFromHome Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Well the idiot lawyer was flustered on the stand and caved in. Good for him that he became a judge.

Honest mistake.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: But I want you all to address, both sides, the issue of if either one doesn't have a valid test score -- let me give you an example. We have situations that come up from time to time before this committee where something is learned after the fact, such as person actually played sports at another institution. Nobody knew, but that person didn't have eligibility remaining, so they were ineligible. If you have a test score that is invalidated, you didn't have the scores to be admitted to begin with. Where am I wrong?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn't have the score. UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn't matter.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don't believe -- we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn't do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn't have an admissible entry qualification.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That's correct. We have not contested that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn't suggest that they were.

Good gravy, that's embarrassing.

Talk about getting run over.

Jeebus

Not at all. She wasn't there trying to defend Rose's eligibility that ship has sailed. She was arguing what the University knew or could have known. Strict liability was the weird application that negated ALL of the Universities defenses.