Bear Down Wildcats

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:So...what NCAA rule was actually broken?

Quoting 97Cats:

"10.1 Unethical Conduct...look it up"

That is the most vague and thus the most threatening rule for us. A million things can be shoehorned under it, which is part of the reason proportionality and precedent matter so much as we talk to the NCAA.

I must have missed that, thanks.

Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

I actually doubt it will. Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. Plus UNC is a blue blood, cash cow program so they're essentially immune to NCAA punishment. I think a one to two year post season ban, vacating some wins, and Miller serving a short suspension is a realistic and fair ruling. This whole thing has really drug the program and university through the mud. And I'm not buying for one second Miller didn't know anything. We all know that's just complete BS. I just can't wait for it all to finally be over. I'm so tired of hearing about it ad nauseum.

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

None

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

On the aspect of internal compliance, it should. Honestly, my biggest concern is the vagueness in the unethical conduct statute and how it can be applied to criminal conduct.

The NCAA has been extremely inconsistent and incompetent in handling criminal conduct as a potential violation. Penn State's child rape scandal is exhibit A there. Frankly, I'd go hard at that juxtaposition more than UNC.

They initially got hammered, then had penalties rescinded down to scholarship reductions, probation and a two year postseason ban. Personally, I would point at that, and how much "better" (neither is good) accepting bribe money is than covering up child rape.

That should go a long way. If covering up child rape for decades gets you a 2 year postseason ban, Book's conviction should get zero years. It's not even arguable that those two criminal offenses are in the same stratosphere.

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

On the aspect of internal compliance, it should. Honestly, my biggest concern is the vagueness in the unethical conduct statute and how it can be applied to criminal conduct.

The NCAA has been extremely inconsistent and incompetent in handling criminal conduct as a potential violation. Penn State's child rape scandal is exhibit A there. Frankly, I'd go hard at that juxtaposition more than UNC.

They initially got hammered, then had penalties rescinded down to scholarship reductions, probation and a two year postseason ban. Personally, I would point at that, and how much "better" (neither is good) accepting bribe money is than covering up child rape.

That should go a long way. If covering up child rape for decades gets you a 2 year postseason ban, Book's conviction should get zero years. It's not even arguable that those two criminal offenses are in the same stratosphere.

Was thinking the same regarding the many instances of sexual misconduct allegations and the lack of the NCAA's hammer on those programs.

Michigan State comes to mind for the rampant allegations of sexual assault and subsequent cover-ups - 35 in total since 2012 including the allegation that three basketball players raped a fellow student in 2015.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

On the aspect of internal compliance, it should. Honestly, my biggest concern is the vagueness in the unethical conduct statute and how it can be applied to criminal conduct.

The NCAA has been extremely inconsistent and incompetent in handling criminal conduct as a potential violation. Penn State's child rape scandal is exhibit A there. Frankly, I'd go hard at that juxtaposition more than UNC.

They initially got hammered, then had penalties rescinded down to scholarship reductions, probation and a two year postseason ban. Personally, I would point at that, and how much "better" (neither is good) accepting bribe money is than covering up child rape.

That should go a long way. If covering up child rape for decades gets you a 2 year postseason ban, Book's conviction should get zero years. It's not even arguable that those two criminal offenses are in the same stratosphere.

Was thinking the same regarding the many instances of sexual misconduct allegations and the lack of the NCAA's hammer on those programs.

Michigan State comes to mind for the rampant allegations of sexual assault and subsequent cover-ups - 35 in total since 2012 including the allegation that three basketball players raped a fellow student in 2015.

Yeah. Just the criminal sexual misconduct area gives you a sense for how inconsistent the NCAA is in the area of punishment for criminal misconduct.

Book's misconduct does run closer to basketball than sexual misconduct. When you really drill down, it wasn't about the basketball program in the way the NCAA usually cares.

U of A's victim statement and Book's own words in sentencing made this clear. What he truly got convicted of was using his position to take bribes to steer players to an agent. At its core, institutional control violations are virtually all about corrupt actions that benefit the institution. Book's actions were about himself, not Arizona.

The most salacious allegations that the NCAA cares the kost about are also the ones with the least (or basically zero) proof. The provable stuff is criminally illegal and done by an employee, but not a scheme to benefit the program.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

I think this is exactly right. The purpose of an NCAA investigation is to uncover evidence of that lack of institutional control. If none is found, then the sole fact of an undercover investigation that reveals an assistant coach getting paid on the side to do things that don't create an advantage for the program does not constitute a lack of institutional control.

It would be like if the masturbation police caught Dick Vitale in the privacy of his own home enjoying videos of Arizona losing to Duke in the title game, and then they report it to the Church, which then proceeds to excommunicate ESPN.

In reality, ESPN would simply fire Dick Vitale for being a boisterous idiot, and the priests would focus on what they do best: getting drunk, riding zoo carousels, and cruising for minors.

I think I may have gotten off track somewhere in this post.

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

I think this is exactly right. The purpose of an NCAA investigation is to uncover evidence of that lack of institutional control. If none is found, then the sole fact of an undercover investigation that reveals an assistant coach getting paid on the side to do things that don't create an advantage for the program does not constitute a lack of institutional control.

It would be like if the masturbation police caught Dick Vitale in the privacy of his own home enjoying videos of Arizona losing to Duke in the title game, and then they report it to the Church, which then proceeds to excommunicate ESPN.

In reality, ESPN would simply fire Dick Vitale for being a boisterous idiot, and the priests would focus on what they do best: getting drunk, riding zoo carousels, and cruising for minors.

I think I may have gotten off track somewhere in this post.

Simply beautiful

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

I think this is exactly right. The purpose of an NCAA investigation is to uncover evidence of that lack of institutional control. If none is found, then the sole fact of an undercover investigation that reveals an assistant coach getting paid on the side to do things that don't create an advantage for the program does not constitute a lack of institutional control.

It would be like if the masturbation police caught Dick Vitale in the privacy of his own home enjoying videos of Arizona losing to Duke in the title game, and then they report it to the Church, which then proceeds to excommunicate ESPN.

In reality, ESPN would simply fire Dick Vitale for being a boisterous idiot, and the priests would focus on what they do best: getting drunk, riding zoo carousels, and cruising for minors.

I think I may have gotten off track somewhere in this post.

Frame this cause its perfect.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

I think this is exactly right. The purpose of an NCAA investigation is to uncover evidence of that lack of institutional control. If none is found, then the sole fact of an undercover investigation that reveals an assistant coach getting paid on the side to do things that don't create an advantage for the program does not constitute a lack of institutional control.

It would be like if the masturbation police caught Dick Vitale in the privacy of his own home enjoying videos of Arizona losing to Duke in the title game, and then they report it to the Church, which then proceeds to excommunicate ESPN.

In reality, ESPN would simply fire Dick Vitale for being a boisterous idiot, and the priests would focus on what they do best: getting drunk, riding zoo carousels, and cruising for minors.

I think I may have gotten off track somewhere in this post.

Frame this cause its perfect.

LH your wit and sense of humor are one of the best things about BDW.

Lamont Evans getting 3 months in jail.

84Cat wrote:Lamont Evans getting 3 months in jail.

Pretty consistent with Book.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

84Cat wrote:Lamont Evans getting 3 months in jail.

Pretty consistent with Book.

Bunk mates?

Alieberman wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

84Cat wrote:Lamont Evans getting 3 months in jail.

Pretty consistent with Book.

Bunk mates?

I didn't know this, but Evans is apparently from Barbados and could be deported as a result of this as well.

Book and Evans might as well. They'll have a nice ice breaker and won't need to ask what the other is in for.

Chuck Person 6 counts and took $91K. Maybe 6 months to a year?

Captain Obvious wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Is the "what UNC did was way worse" reasoning gonna hold as much water as many here expect it will?

I actually doubt it will. Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. Plus UNC is a blue blood, cash cow program so they're essentially immune to NCAA punishment. I think a one to two year post season ban, vacating some wins, and Miller serving a short suspension is a realistic and fair ruling. This whole thing has really drug the program and university through the mud. And I'm not buying for one second Miller didn't know anything. We all know that's just complete BS. I just can't wait for it all to finally be over. I'm so tired of hearing about it ad nauseum.

Oh, ok...

Jefe wrote:Chuck Person 6 counts and took $91K. Maybe 6 months to a year?

And there won’t be a peep out of DukieV about it.

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:Miller is still guilty by not maintaining institutional control and there's no way around that. .

I'm not sold on the lack of institutional control argument. Arizona and Miller in particular reportedly have the compliance process (documenting, educating, monitoring) down to a "t". The NCAA will argue that he should have known what Book was doing - though that's nonsense, given it was one offseason and took an FBI probe to uncover - and they'll argue that the program should do more to distance itself from agents and handlers - which is difficult because that's recruiting but is likely something we should have done a better job at keeping structured and transparent.

Arizona cleaning house of the coaching staff below Miller maybe softens the blow as well, though the NCAA has no qualms about punishing a group of people (including most importantly student-athletes) who had nothing to do with past violations.

I think this is exactly right. The purpose of an NCAA investigation is to uncover evidence of that lack of institutional control. If none is found, then the sole fact of an undercover investigation that reveals an assistant coach getting paid on the side to do things that don't create an advantage for the program does not constitute a lack of institutional control.

It would be like if the masturbation police caught Dick Vitale in the privacy of his own home enjoying videos of Arizona losing to Duke in the title game, and then they report it to the Church, which then proceeds to excommunicate ESPN.

In reality, ESPN would simply fire Dick Vitale for being a boisterous idiot, and the priests would focus on what they do best: getting drunk, riding zoo carousels, and cruising for minors.

I think I may have gotten off track somewhere in this post.

Holy shit is that an epic post. Someone needs to send that to ESPIN and Dukie V LOL

Jefe wrote:Chuck Person 6 counts and took $91K. Maybe 6 months to a year?

If I was Person, I'd be planning for a Club Fed excursion in light of Book and Evans's sentences.

What became of the O’Neal-Phelps grade thing?

Seems like if that were proven, that would be more egregious than Book because it was academic fraud and related to getting a kid on the floor.


Also, will anyone go after Pasternak? He knew of the bribes even if he didn’t partake.
To me, that seems like a problem.

But maybe Pasternak told Sean.

Postmaster wrote:What became of the O’Neal-Phelps grade thing?

Seems like if that were proven, that would be more egregious than Book because it was academic fraud and related to getting a kid on the floor.


Also, will anyone go after Pasternak? He knew of the bribes even if he didn’t partake.
To me, that seems like a problem.

But maybe Pasternak told Sean.

Someone mentioned before what a pain in the ass it is to fire a university employee so I believe they just decided to let his contract expire.

On a side note, does anyone here subscribe to the Athletic?

azgreg wrote:On a side note, does anyone here subscribe to the Athletic?

I do - I enjoy it overall.

azgreg wrote:

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!

Arizona now has Jack Murphy Stadium working with Coach? I always wondered what happened to that darn thing.

RichardCranium wrote:

azgreg wrote:

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!

Arizona now has Jack Murphy Stadium working with Coach? I always wondered what happened to that darn thing.

That darn thing is still barely standing. "The Murph" became "The Q", then the Chargers abandoned it for L.A.

I subscribe to the Athletic, worth it to support good long form journalism to me.

This is a nice article, nothing too deep in there but I appreciate a couple items:

1) Murphy and Miller were only acquaintances before this, and Murphy didn't expect that when Miller called it was to offer him the position.

Murphy knew Miller. A University of Arizona alum and a long-time staffer under former coach Lute Olson, he had attended Miller’s introductory news conference in 2009. The two had been friendly since, although Murphy couldn’t recall communicating much with Miller over the last year. Murphy knew Miller had an opening on his staff, so his first thought was that the Arizona coach wanted to get Murphy’s opinion on candidates.

Instead, Miller wanted Murphy.

“It was certainly out of left field,” Murphy said. “Not something I was expecting.”

2) Murph's comments re: working together as a single unit:

“I’m very fortunate, because at this point I’ve done every job there is to do in college basketball,” said Murphy, who also worked as an assistant coach under Josh Pastner at Memphis. “It gives me great perspective. You value everyone in the program. Everyone is important. I think back to our great Arizona teams — everyone was involved. Everyone was rowing in the same direction and on the same page. I just think that’s so important that I got experience in those positions, but it’s also something I have an appreciation for after being a head coach.”

3) Murp's comments re: the investigaiton...

“As someone who’s invested in the program, I followed the whole (FBI) situation myself from the outside,” Murphy said. “If you do that, if you look at it with an unbiased lens and really decipher what’s going on, you knew that a lot of this stuff was outside of Sean’s control or outside the program’s control. I already felt like everything at the end of the day was going to go well for Arizona, (but) Sean did address it. He obviously has been through a lot these last two years personally. I think the program’s been through a lot. But I also believe that the light is at the end of the tunnel.”

At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

YoDeFoe wrote:At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

1. Clean
2. Good eye for talent/recruiting, good ties to Las Vegas namely
3. Build back any good will Miller may have lost with the alumni due to the bad press and such

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

1. Clean
2. Good eye for talent/recruiting, good ties to Las Vegas namely
3. Build back any good will Miller may have lost with the alumni due to the bad press and such

#3 is virtually the foundation, at least in design, of the program Sean was building. "A Player's Program", no power struggle with Lute, welcoming of Lute's players, etc. A lot of young coaches try to push away from the legend they replace, make it their own. Sean was building a program that, by design, was to appear seamless to the past. Yeah, Sean put his stamp in other places, be it removing the Arizona cactus logo or changing the band's introductions, the arena lighting, etc. But those were surface updates. The whole face of the program was that seamless identity from past to present.

I can imagine that took a huge hit. Arizona was a name former players wore with pride. Alumni, the ones not obsessed, were used to the perception of a squeaky clean Lute and knew few of the details of this other than what they read and saw from national media.

You can't undo that (yes, we are a victim), but you can certainly rebuild bridges with players and alumni that read you have a former Lute staffer. Oh...and Murph is good, too.

I was in the next booth in a popular Mexican food place in Flagstaff (OK...LaFonda's) when Murphy hosted a recruit and family out for dinner. It was fun to eavesdrop...nothing shocking or revolutionary about his spiel, but he was passionate and dynamic. Certainly, not something to judge an entire hire upon, but as an NAU fan it was encouraging to hear. There was a failure to launch up there, and the reasons have been discussed already. But he is capable and hungry, and the Lute narrative ain't a bad thing to add at all.

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

1. Clean
2. Good eye for talent/recruiting, good ties to Las Vegas namely
3. Build back any good will Miller may have lost with the alumni due to the bad press and such

4. Acceptable as acting head coach if....

(If you’re about to say this didn’t even occur to you one time, who do you think you’re foolin’???)

pc in NM wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

1. Clean
2. Good eye for talent/recruiting, good ties to Las Vegas namely
3. Build back any good will Miller may have lost with the alumni due to the bad press and such

4. Acceptable as acting head coach if....

(If you’re about to say this didn’t even occur to you one time, who do you think you’re foolin’???)

For sure. The NCAA could certainly decide to suspend Miller for a number of games. But any potential associate head coach would have to be an acceptable acting head coach. Not all of the other qualities for the position are a foregone conclusion with any other candidate.

pc in NM wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:At this point my greatest curiosity is how Miller came to decide on Murph to fill the spot.

1. Clean
2. Good eye for talent/recruiting, good ties to Las Vegas namely
3. Build back any good will Miller may have lost with the alumni due to the bad press and such

4. Acceptable as acting head coach if....

(If you’re about to say this didn’t even occur to you one time, who do you think you’re foolin’???)

I advocated for Tim Miles for months. I'm well aware. This hire was always going to be a very experienced guy because our other two assistants and very junior.

I didn't mean "I don't see why Miller would hire Murph" ...I very much like the hire. Just meant that I'm curious how Miller approached the coaching search and how he came to target Murph. Essentially the subject article but from the other side of that phone call. Just an idle curiosity of mine.

How many assistant coaches were still interested in coming to UA? I would think a lot of coaches would rather avoid all the drama at this point so maybe we needed someone who knew how great the UA is/can be. Most of our former alums have moved on to coaching in the NBA

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

"At least 20 schools were mentioned during the course of the FBI's investigation. Among others were Oklahoma State, Southern Cal and Auburn. Wilcox said only those schools involved in eligibility issues would be impacted."

This whole article scares me that we could see punishments as early as this year. Worth noting that Stan Wilcox, an NCAA official said only those schools involved in eligibility issues would be impacted. UofA to our knowledge shouldn't be under that.

Edit: "Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations," Wilcox said.

Dude totally contradicts himself. UofA doesn't have eligibility issues but Book definitely was discussing violations to NCAA rules. Seems like we might be seeing consequences earlier than we thought.
UofA will obviously appeal this since they were made the victim in the federal trial. If somehow we get a 2019-2020 postseason ban I will die on the inside.

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

NYCat wrote:

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

Why would Ayton be an eligibility issue if he didn't receive any money and was cleared by the NCAA for eligibility? The only team who offered Ayton money is Kansas.

Catintheheat wrote:

NYCat wrote:

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

Why would Ayton be an eligibility issue if he didn't receive any money and was cleared by the NCAA for eligibility?

Agree, Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI. The FBI found no wrong doing with Miller or Ayton. Would the NCAA really go back and say now based on someone who is a known bullshitter saying bullshit and rule Ayton ineligible when the FBI couldnt find it?

Well this is fun. Cool of the NCAA to discuss an on-going investigation in nebulous terms (sometimes specific - like six schools - sometimes vague). Now we all get to freak out for a month.

NYCat wrote:

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

It's obviously speculation, but only two schools suspended players in connection with this, Kansas (DeSousa) and Louisville (Bowen). If the focus is eligibility issues, that would be an easy place to start.

I think it goes like this. Two schools with eligibility issues, Louisville and Kansas. 4 schools with convicted assistants. Arizona, USC, OSU and Auburn.

That's your 6.

Who knows if it's relating to Ayton but Arizona is definitely one of the two 'major programs' that will receive a notice in July.

"Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations," Wilcox said.

That's likely Book stuff and Miller stuff

Schools / players with eligibility issues:

USC / DeAnthony Melton
Auburn / Austin Wiley
Auburn / Daniel Purifoy
Kansas / Billy Preston
Kansas / Silvio De Sousa
Louisville / Brian Bowen
Alabama / Colin Sexton

Who am I missing?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Two schools with eligibility issues, Louisville and Kansas. 4 schools with convicted assistants. Arizona, USC, OSU and Auburn.

That's your 6.

In a reasonable world, that's your answer. Unfortunately, we're in the NCAA's world now.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Two schools with eligibility issues, Louisville and Kansas. 4 schools with convicted assistants. Arizona, USC, OSU and Auburn.

That's your 6.

In a reasonable world, that's your answer. Unfortunately, we're in the NCAA's world now.

Who knows? I was not thrilled at the tone of the NCAA's commentary about restoring the system. It's so tone dead for how the system is actually functioning.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Two schools with eligibility issues, Louisville and Kansas. 4 schools with convicted assistants. Arizona, USC, OSU and Auburn.

That's your 6.

In a reasonable world, that's your answer. Unfortunately, we're in the NCAA's world now.

Who knows? I was not thrilled at the tone of the NCAA's commentary about restoring the system. It's so tone dead for how the system is actually functioning.

It 100% sounds like they're approaching this as a PR move and not a fair investigation.

PHXCATS wrote:

Catintheheat wrote:

NYCat wrote:

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

Why would Ayton be an eligibility issue if he didn't receive any money and was cleared by the NCAA for eligibility?

Agree, Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI. The FBI found no wrong doing with Miller or Ayton. Would the NCAA really go back and say now based on someone who is a known bullshitter saying bullshit and rule Ayton ineligible when the FBI couldnt find it?

I mean, if Ayton has eligibility issues, I'll be ready to storm NCAA offices if Zion doesn't also have eligibility issues.