Bear Down Wildcats

So who would you kill if they said in late February our punishment would be a ban of the tourney? I would fn lose my mind.

I fully expect that to be an option. After we self banned last year and it was cancelled in 2020 and we missed in 2019..I won't be surprised at all this year if we win the conference and are on track for 1-2 seed and at the last second the ncaa bans us.

ASUHATER! wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:43 pm I fully expect that to be an option. After we self banned last year and it was cancelled in 2020 and we missed in 2019..I won't be surprised at all this year if we win the conference and are on track for 1-2 seed and at the last second the ncaa bans us.

I would be surprised, but not shocked, if that were to happen.

The IARP is moving at a glacial pace and there are a number of teams in front of us who have not received a ruling yet. I am more concerned about the potential offseason fallout from a possible 2023 postseason ban. Someone like Koloko, who might consider returning, could instead hit the transfer portal and go make $$$NIL$$$ playing for an Oregon/Kentucky for his senior year.

ASUHATER! wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:43 pm I fully expect that to be an option. After we self banned last year and it was cancelled in 2020 and we missed in 2019..I won't be surprised at all this year if we win the conference and are on track for 1-2 seed and at the last second the ncaa bans us.

Nah.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:23 am

Merkin wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:10 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:44 am

Chicat wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:17 am There’s no way we’ll be that lucky.

You never know, but this has to help us in the IARP. The more the NCAA hands out punishments close to what we self-imposed, the more we can argue proportionality matters with those punishments.

Can they even argue at this point? I thought the IARP process was binding with no avenue for appeal.

IARP is binding, but proportional punishment to comparable cases is an explicit part of their process. The more cases that get probation, minor suspensions or single year bans, the harder it becomes to justify giving us more.

The IARP is independent but looks to the NCAA's underlying punishments in determining how we fit. We'll clearly be punished, but if no one's getting multiyear bans or big scholarship restrictions, it lessens the chance we get either of those.

Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

dmjcat wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:52 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:23 am

Merkin wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:10 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:44 am

Chicat wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:17 am There’s no way we’ll be that lucky.

You never know, but this has to help us in the IARP. The more the NCAA hands out punishments close to what we self-imposed, the more we can argue proportionality matters with those punishments.

Can they even argue at this point? I thought the IARP process was binding with no avenue for appeal.

IARP is binding, but proportional punishment to comparable cases is an explicit part of their process. The more cases that get probation, minor suspensions or single year bans, the harder it becomes to justify giving us more.

The IARP is independent but looks to the NCAA's underlying punishments in determining how we fit. We'll clearly be punished, but if no one's getting multiyear bans or big scholarship restrictions, it lessens the chance we get either of those.

Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

You literally say UA has been charged with different things and yet you think we'll face KU level penalties who are once again charged with different more proven things and with more total charges against them?

There's info about those Reef transcripts that isn't public yet. Will be interesting to see how the IARP views it, because it's really bullshit.

ChooChooCat wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:50 am

ASUHATER! wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:43 pm I fully expect that to be an option. After we self banned last year and it was cancelled in 2020 and we missed in 2019..I won't be surprised at all this year if we win the conference and are on track for 1-2 seed and at the last second the ncaa bans us.

Nah.

That would really be unprecedented I think if they gave us a post season ban in the middle of the season. That would hugely suck.

U of A isn't getting a tourney ban this season, but if they did, there aren't enough Dick Vitale cheerleaders to avoid a complete public relations disaster that would turn the world against the NCAA.

dmjcat wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:52 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:23 am

Merkin wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:10 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:44 am

Chicat wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:17 am There’s no way we’ll be that lucky.

You never know, but this has to help us in the IARP. The more the NCAA hands out punishments close to what we self-imposed, the more we can argue proportionality matters with those punishments.

Can they even argue at this point? I thought the IARP process was binding with no avenue for appeal.

IARP is binding, but proportional punishment to comparable cases is an explicit part of their process. The more cases that get probation, minor suspensions or single year bans, the harder it becomes to justify giving us more.

The IARP is independent but looks to the NCAA's underlying punishments in determining how we fit. We'll clearly be punished, but if no one's getting multiyear bans or big scholarship restrictions, it lessens the chance we get either of those.

Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

So no penalty? I mean Kansas clearly didn’t break any rules according to One Eye. So no penalty for KU, no penalty for AZ.

dmjcat wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:52 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:23 am

Merkin wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:10 am Can they even argue at this point? I thought the IARP process was binding with no avenue for appeal.

IARP is binding, but proportional punishment to comparable cases is an explicit part of their process. The more cases that get probation, minor suspensions or single year bans, the harder it becomes to justify giving us more.

The IARP is independent but looks to the NCAA's underlying punishments in determining how we fit. We'll clearly be punished, but if no one's getting multiyear bans or big scholarship restrictions, it lessens the chance we get either of those.

Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

I don't think Kansas is particularly indicative. KU isn't implicated regarding HS transcripts, they just have far more direct evidence of HC involvement with Adidas payouts.

We sought the IARP because we weren't going to admit all we'd been charged with, particularly the transcript stuff. I posted what I did because the giant thing that goes without saying is we will be at minimum convicted of something close to Auburn, Ok. St., SC, etc. But SC didn't get a tourney ban. We would be in a maybe tourney ban situation then and the self sanctions should be fine.

Beyond that is reading tea leaves, but we went as we did to challenge other allegations. The "how the NCAA looks at it" is irrelevant. We make our case for conviction and punishment in an adversarial process to the NCAA with the IARP judging.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 8:47 am

dmjcat wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:52 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:23 am

Merkin wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:10 am Can they even argue at this point? I thought the IARP process was binding with no avenue for appeal.

IARP is binding, but proportional punishment to comparable cases is an explicit part of their process. The more cases that get probation, minor suspensions or single year bans, the harder it becomes to justify giving us more.

The IARP is independent but looks to the NCAA's underlying punishments in determining how we fit. We'll clearly be punished, but if no one's getting multiyear bans or big scholarship restrictions, it lessens the chance we get either of those.

Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

I don't think Kansas is particularly indicative. KU isn't implicated regarding HS transcripts, they just have far more direct evidence of HC involvement with Adidas payouts.

We sought the IARP because we weren't going to admit all we'd been charged with, particularly the transcript stuff. I posted what I did because the giant thing that goes without saying is we will be at minimum convicted of something close to Auburn, Ok. St., SC, etc. But SC didn't get a tourney ban. We would be in a maybe tourney ban situation then and the self sanctions should be fine.

Beyond that is reading tea leaves, but we went as we did to challenge other allegations. The "how the NCAA looks at it" is irrelevant. We make our case for conviction and punishment in an adversarial process to the NCAA with the IARP judging.

I agree that the individual cases differ, but KU has 5 Level 1 violations and we have 5 level 1 violations........their case is closer to ours than SC/Auburn/OSU. In any case I do not believe we should take solace in the fact that Auburn got off relatively unscathed. I fear that our penalties may be worse than whats already been doled out to SC/Auburn/OSU (because we had more violations + transcript issues)

dmjcat wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:43 pm Disagree completely. For one thing the UA has been charged with more (and more serious) violations including altering player HS transcripts. I suspect the NCAA looks upon transcript shenanigans far more negatively than assistant coaches taking bribes from shoe companies.

I think the Kansas penalties will be more indicative of what we are going to face.

I don't think Kansas is particularly indicative. KU isn't implicated regarding HS transcripts, they just have far more direct evidence of HC involvement with Adidas payouts.

We sought the IARP because we weren't going to admit all we'd been charged with, particularly the transcript stuff. I posted what I did because the giant thing that goes without saying is we will be at minimum convicted of something close to Auburn, Ok. St., SC, etc. But SC didn't get a tourney ban. We would be in a maybe tourney ban situation then and the self sanctions should be fine.

Beyond that is reading tea leaves, but we went as we did to challenge other allegations. The "how the NCAA looks at it" is irrelevant. We make our case for conviction and punishment in an adversarial process to the NCAA with the IARP judging.
[/quote]

I agree that the individual cases differ, but KU has 5 Level 1 violations and we have 5 level 1 violations........their case is closer to ours than SC/Auburn/OSU. In any case I do not believe we should take solace in the fact that Auburn got off relatively unscathed. I fear that our penalties may be worse than whats already been doled out to SC/Auburn/OSU (because we had more violations + transcript issues)
[/quote]

Our 5 are the transcripts, Book's conviction, Phelps supposedy asking Pinder to delete a text, failure to control vs Miller and failure to control as an institution.

For KU, allegations 1 and 3 are straight paying players. 2 is outfitting a player's AAU team in exchange for a commitment. 4 and 5 are copies of the control allegations vs Arizona.

The big difference is the direct trial record KU has and their main contention being the person offering benefits was not a booster, not really the lack of evidence.

The transcript fixing, we're contesting, per 97 and others, and there is not a lot of public info corroborating it unlike KU. Phelps asking Pinder to delete, well, it seems below paying players to me. We're 100% getting convicted on Book and 4 and 5 flow from the above.

Per my previous, a lot rides on the transcript stuff, but in public so far is only Book's word.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:57 pm

Our 5 are the transcripts, Book's conviction, Phelps supposedy asking Pinder to delete a text, failure to control vs Miller and failure to control as an institution.

For KU, allegations 1 and 3 are straight paying players. 2 is outfitting a player's AAU team in exchange for a commitment. 4 and 5 are copies of the control allegations vs Arizona.

The big difference is the direct trial record KU has and their main contention being the person offering benefits was not a booster, not really the lack of evidence.

The transcript fixing, we're contesting, per 97 and others, and there is not a lot of public info corroborating it unlike KU. Phelps asking Pinder to delete, well, it seems below paying players to me. We're 100% getting convicted on Book and 4 and 5 flow from the above.

Per my previous, a lot rides on the transcript stuff, but in public so far is only Book's word.

4 & 5 are absolutely meaningless for the basketball program. 1 is the big question mark, but Arizona is confident on it fwiw, 2 is a done deal (tourney ban time already served and recruiting restrictions), and 3 is dumb, but there will be some sort of slap on the wrist for it. Auburn's penalties in regards to recruiting restrictions (loss of a couple of scholys for a set amount of years and less recruiting days) are likely what we're in for and maybe a little extra along those lines. If there's another year of a tourney ban every body would be surprised.

Arizona Basketball has 4 Level 1 violations. The fifth is for Swimming and Diving. Of the four we have, the 1st one is Book. Guilty, and if you compare it to what happened at Auburn, should be less punishment. Person took 3.5X the amount of money and funneled it to players. Book took less and kept it all for himself.

The violation around Pinder is $500, which was self reported and punished, as Pinder repaid all the monies back, and was suspended a couple of games. The NCAA added this to show lack of institutional control.

It's the third and fourth allegations, that revolve around academics, that are the wildcard. One case is about Shareef O'Neil, who never enrolled at Arizona, but instead, went to UCLA. And O'Neal was never ineligible for UCLA, which generally has higher admission requirements for general students than Arizona. O'Neil never played for UCLA because of a heart issue, and is at LSU today. He's never been ruled academically ineligible.

The fourth allegation surrounds Rawle Alkins. Another player that was also never declared ineligible. The claim is Phelps paid someone at Rawle's high school to get his transcripts in line. This case has always puzzled me, because Christ the King (Rawle's high school) has no other allegations of any transcript fixing, and it's difficult to imagine someone would be willing to fix Rawle's record for money, but just stop there. In addition, Rawle was also being recruited by several schools, including Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, St. Johns, and a few more. To my knowledge, none ever backed away from recruiting Rawle.

We deserve punishment for Book's actions. And if this were our only transgression, it's hard to see us get hit harder than Auburn. As for the other three allegations, nobody knows what the IARP will do, but I just don't see a hammer coming. Especially since we're talking about two players who have never been declared ineligible, and a third who was already punished by the school.

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:15 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:57 pm

Our 5 are the transcripts, Book's conviction, Phelps supposedy asking Pinder to delete a text, failure to control vs Miller and failure to control as an institution.

For KU, allegations 1 and 3 are straight paying players. 2 is outfitting a player's AAU team in exchange for a commitment. 4 and 5 are copies of the control allegations vs Arizona.

The big difference is the direct trial record KU has and their main contention being the person offering benefits was not a booster, not really the lack of evidence.

The transcript fixing, we're contesting, per 97 and others, and there is not a lot of public info corroborating it unlike KU. Phelps asking Pinder to delete, well, it seems below paying players to me. We're 100% getting convicted on Book and 4 and 5 flow from the above.

Per my previous, a lot rides on the transcript stuff, but in public so far is only Book's word.

4 & 5 are absolutely meaningless for the basketball program. 1 is the big question mark, but Arizona is confident on it fwiw, 2 is a done deal (tourney ban time already served and recruiting restrictions), and 3 is dumb, but there will be some sort of slap on the wrist for it. Auburn's penalties in regards to recruiting restrictions (loss of a couple of scholys for a set amount of years and less recruiting days) are likely what we're in for and maybe a little extra along those lines. If there's another year of a tourney ban every body would be surprised.

Agreed. 1 is the big one. 4 and 5 derive from 1-3 with no additional info. I agree 3 seems ticky tack and 2 is a given to happen.

An extra tourney ban seems only possible if the transcript stuff is proven and really significant.

Lunardi has the Cats #2 in the west.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

Irish27 wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:07 am Lunardi has the Cats #2 in the west.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

That bribery pays off. With NIL, I think we need to be A Payers Program.

From the new NCAA constitution committee that was accepted. ""to the greatest extent possible" that any imposed penalties do not punish programs or athletes who were not involved or implicated in the infractions "-- a modification to the typically lengthy investigative process that sometimes isn't resolved until after the individuals who committed the violations have moved on.

Irish27 wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:07 am Lunardi has the Cats #2 in the west.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

He has USC as the automatic qualifier. . . as a 4 seed. Huh.

nm

ghostwhitehorse wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:57 am

Irish27 wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:07 am Lunardi has the Cats #2 in the west.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

He has USC as the automatic qualifier. . . as a 4 seed. Huh.

His toupee is on too tight.

This is still the wrong thread.

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:09 am

This is nuts. WILD that they received no ban after legit paying a five star recruit for his commitment and play.

YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:17 am

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:09 am

This is nuts. WILD that they received no ban after legit paying a five star recruit for his commitment and play.

Every time this happens, it's good for us. It gets harder and harder to justify more than we already self imposed when everyone's getting no ban or a year in the more extreme cases.

YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:17 am

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:09 am

This is nuts. WILD that they received no ban after legit paying a five star recruit for his commitment and play.

Why waste time banning someone from a postseason they won’t make?

If the IARP is consistent with their level of punishment I think we're going to get extra scholarships

YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:08 pm If the IARP is consistent with their level of punishment I think we're going to get extra scholarships

I'd ultimately be happy, but a "no additional punishment, carry on" from the IARP would also make me so frustrated for all the fallout that's gone on since 2017.

Can someone who has a better understanding than I do weigh in on a comparison of the charges between the two schools? How does the case against Arizona compare to that of NC State? They had two Level 1s compared to five against Arizona. Does this ruling make it less likely that we end up with an additional tourney ban?

CatFan1399 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:34 pm Can someone who has a better understanding than I do weigh in on a comparison of the charges between the two schools? How does the case against Arizona compare to that of NC State? They had two Level 1s compared to five against Arizona. Does this ruling make it less likely that we end up with an additional tourney ban?

Well for one it was proven they literally paid Dennis Smith to go to NC State. There's no proof anywhere that Arizona ever paid a single soul. Arizona's main hurdles at the moment are the tampering of the transcripts with Shareef O'Neal and Rawle Alkins.

Their are two wild cards to me. Book did not cooperate (he had been fired so why would he). Robbins and Hek did not provide the NCAA with a copy of our internal investigation (guess they never heard of attorney/client privilege.) Those are the only factors that I can see that they may grab on to.

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:53 pm

CatFan1399 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:34 pm Can someone who has a better understanding than I do weigh in on a comparison of the charges between the two schools? How does the case against Arizona compare to that of NC State? They had two Level 1s compared to five against Arizona. Does this ruling make it less likely that we end up with an additional tourney ban?

Well for one it was proven they literally paid Dennis Smith to go to NC State. There's no proof anywhere that Arizona ever paid a single soul. Arizona's main hurdles at the moment are the tampering of the transcripts with Shareef O'Neal and Rawle Alkins.

There is an element of apples to oranges in that our biggest threat is the transcripts. NCSU...well, it's amazing that with multiple levels of proof of direct cash to DSJ they got no tourney ban.

In terms of type of allegations, NCSU is more like Kansas in Gassnola paying players and the head coach being involved. Their allegations are direct payment and supported by a level of proof ours aren't. The only thing that could go worse for us, as Choo says, is the transcripts.

If the transcripts aren't devastating for us, I don't know how we could get more than the already self imposed ban and a reasonable scholarship reduction.

TheCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:57 pm Their are two wild cards to me. Book did not cooperate (he had been fired so why would he). Robbins and Hek did not provide the NCAA with a copy of our internal investigation (guess they never heard of attorney/client privilege.) Those are the only factors that I can see that they may grab on to.

That's where you hope the IARP helps. Ok. St. cooperated and got drilled.

The NCAA hasn't used cooperation in mitigation, which you hope the IARP understands. Also, we elected IARP early on, so you'd hope we presented to them instead of the NCAA.

Phelps did pay a player. Pinder, who got $500 to fly family over to see him. It's one of the Level 1 violations, but it's something we self reported and punished already. Pinder paid back every cent and was suspended a couple of games.

If you're looking at what Book did versus NC State, their allegations are worse. More money, head coach involved, and money funneled to a player. None of which happened with us.

That leaves the two transcript cases. And strangely, neither case deals with a player ever ruled ineligible. Difficult to see us getting hammered over these, and we self reported the O'Neal case, fired Phelps, and already self banned post season for a year.

The NC State ruling points to us getting probation and a few scholarship losses. We will also get a one year post season ban, but that's time served.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:07 pm

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:53 pm

CatFan1399 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:34 pm Can someone who has a better understanding than I do weigh in on a comparison of the charges between the two schools? How does the case against Arizona compare to that of NC State? They had two Level 1s compared to five against Arizona. Does this ruling make it less likely that we end up with an additional tourney ban?

Well for one it was proven they literally paid Dennis Smith to go to NC State. There's no proof anywhere that Arizona ever paid a single soul. Arizona's main hurdles at the moment are the tampering of the transcripts with Shareef O'Neal and Rawle Alkins.

There is an element of apples to oranges in that our biggest threat is the transcripts. NCSU...well, it's amazing that with multiple levels of proof of direct cash to DSJ they got no tourney ban.

In terms of type of allegations, NCSU is more like Kansas in Gassnola paying players and the head coach being involved. Their allegations are direct payment and supported by a level of proof ours aren't. The only thing that could go worse for us, as Choo says, is the transcripts.

If the transcripts aren't devastating for us, I don't know how we could get more than the already self imposed ban and a reasonable scholarship reduction.

My prediction of a show-cause for Self is coming closer to being a reality...

On another note, I wonder if the IARP shied away from a post-season ban because they wanted to punish the program and the coaches instead of the players. Given that schools like Kansas and LSU still have their staff intact, do those programs receive post-season bans? I think it's likely.

In case anyone is wondering why Kansas should be super-fucked, here's an nice deep dive on TJ Gassnola, Bill Self and Kurtis Townsend's favorite Adidas rep / KU recruiter:

https://www.si.com/college/2020/05/08/k ... j-gassnola

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:21 pm Phelps did pay a player. Pinder, who got $500 to fly family over to see him. It's one of the Level 1 violations, but it's something we self reported and punished already. Pinder paid back every cent and was suspended a couple of games.

If you're looking at what Book did versus NC State, their allegations are worse. More money, head coach involved, and money funneled to a player. None of which happened with us.

That leaves the two transcript cases. And strangely, neither case deals with a player ever ruled ineligible. Difficult to see us getting hammered over these, and we self reported the O'Neal case, fired Phelps, and already self banned post season for a year.

The NC State ruling points to us getting probation and a few scholarship losses. We will also get a one year post season ban, but that's time served.

I mean paying a player is eh. No one paid Pinder to come to Arizona. He was a current player and needed a small loan. It's seriously the dumbest god damn part of this entire shenanigans. Pinder didn't come to Arizona to get a fucking petty loan and we didn't need to do it to get him to come to Arizona. Nobody benefited from this transaction. The fact they're holding it against us is fucking dumb.

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:39 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:21 pm Phelps did pay a player. Pinder, who got $500 to fly family over to see him. It's one of the Level 1 violations, but it's something we self reported and punished already. Pinder paid back every cent and was suspended a couple of games.

If you're looking at what Book did versus NC State, their allegations are worse. More money, head coach involved, and money funneled to a player. None of which happened with us.

That leaves the two transcript cases. And strangely, neither case deals with a player ever ruled ineligible. Difficult to see us getting hammered over these, and we self reported the O'Neal case, fired Phelps, and already self banned post season for a year.

The NC State ruling points to us getting probation and a few scholarship losses. We will also get a one year post season ban, but that's time served.

I mean paying a player is eh. No one paid Pinder to come to Arizona. He was a current player and needed a small loan. It's seriously the dumbest god damn part of this entire shenanigans. Pinder didn't come to Arizona to get a fucking petty loan and we didn't need to do it to get him to come to Arizona. Nobody benefited from this transaction. The fact they're holding it against us is fucking dumb.

This. There's a massive difference between 100k to commit and a few hundred loan after committing and playing a year.

By the way, if you needed a lesson on how messed up NCAA rules are, the fact it's a level 1 that an assistant lends $500 to a player to fly home and then gets repaid is a good starting point. In any other context, it would be a morally admirable act. In the NCAA's context, it's a severe violation.

It just drives me insane that people around here (southern Indiana/Louisville) think Arizona and Miller have already been proven guilty. They don’t even pay attention to the details. I try to tell them not to believe everything you read…like why would Adidas pay kids to go to Arizona (a Nike school)? It’s common sense…but they read an ESPN article that said otherwise..so I need to “chill out on my conspiracy theories”

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:19 pm

TheCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:57 pm Their are two wild cards to me. Book did not cooperate (he had been fired so why would he). Robbins and Hek did not provide the NCAA with a copy of our internal investigation (guess they never heard of attorney/client privilege.) Those are the only factors that I can see that they may grab on to.

That's where you hope the IARP helps. Ok. St. cooperated and got drilled.

The NCAA hasn't used cooperation in mitigation, which you hope the IARP understands. Also, we elected IARP early on, so you'd hope we presented to them instead of the NCAA.

Well they have used that because that was part of the reason they said Ok ST got drilled. The asst did not cooperate because he was terminated.

"Evans, who never had to speak at trial due to pleading guilty, did not cooperate with the NCAA's investigation. That was a factor in Oklahoma State's punishment, a source told CBS Sports." It should also be noted that they said because the rest of Ok.St. cooperated they only got a 1 year band and 3 scholly's in a 3 year period when the guidelines called for a TWO year ban. I will loose my shit if this happens.

YoDeFoe wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:23 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:07 pm

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:53 pm

CatFan1399 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:34 pm Can someone who has a better understanding than I do weigh in on a comparison of the charges between the two schools? How does the case against Arizona compare to that of NC State? They had two Level 1s compared to five against Arizona. Does this ruling make it less likely that we end up with an additional tourney ban?

Well for one it was proven they literally paid Dennis Smith to go to NC State. There's no proof anywhere that Arizona ever paid a single soul. Arizona's main hurdles at the moment are the tampering of the transcripts with Shareef O'Neal and Rawle Alkins.

There is an element of apples to oranges in that our biggest threat is the transcripts. NCSU...well, it's amazing that with multiple levels of proof of direct cash to DSJ they got no tourney ban.

In terms of type of allegations, NCSU is more like Kansas in Gassnola paying players and the head coach being involved. Their allegations are direct payment and supported by a level of proof ours aren't. The only thing that could go worse for us, as Choo says, is the transcripts.

If the transcripts aren't devastating for us, I don't know how we could get more than the already self imposed ban and a reasonable scholarship reduction.

My prediction of a show-cause for Self is coming closer to being a reality...

On another note, I wonder if the IARP shied away from a post-season ban because they wanted to punish the program and the coaches instead of the players. Given that schools like Kansas and LSU still have their staff intact, do those programs receive post-season bans? I think it's likely.

IARP specifically says in their release re: punishment for NC State that they were reluctant to use a postseason ban as it would punish the existing athletes more than anyone else.

We're going to get time served.

ChooChooCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:39 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:21 pm Phelps did pay a player. Pinder, who got $500 to fly family over to see him. It's one of the Level 1 violations, but it's something we self reported and punished already. Pinder paid back every cent and was suspended a couple of games.

If you're looking at what Book did versus NC State, their allegations are worse. More money, head coach involved, and money funneled to a player. None of which happened with us.

That leaves the two transcript cases. And strangely, neither case deals with a player ever ruled ineligible. Difficult to see us getting hammered over these, and we self reported the O'Neal case, fired Phelps, and already self banned post season for a year.

The NC State ruling points to us getting probation and a few scholarship losses. We will also get a one year post season ban, but that's time served.

I mean paying a player is eh. No one paid Pinder to come to Arizona. He was a current player and needed a small loan. It's seriously the dumbest god damn part of this entire shenanigans. Pinder didn't come to Arizona to get a fucking petty loan and we didn't need to do it to get him to come to Arizona. Nobody benefited from this transaction. The fact they're holding it against us is fucking dumb.

I agree the loan part is dumb. The part that might bite us is he allegedly ask Pinder to delete messages about the loan, A coach telling a player to hide potential evidence is the main thing. It isn't the crime its the coverup.

I agree the loan part is dumb. The part that might bite us is he allegedly ask Pinder to delete messages about the loan, A coach telling a player to hide potential evidence is the main thing. It isn't the crime its the coverup.
[/quote]

While IARP is new, this is an important point. The NCAA screwed Georgia Tech football over a player selling some memorabilia (I think it was self reported and dealt with) because someone on the Tech staff met with the kid during the investigation. I don't recall any allegation of witness tampering, it was simply the NCAA did not have much to work with on the underlying conduct so they moved to a fictional cover-up to justify punishment.

TheCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:29 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:19 pm

TheCat wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:57 pm Their are two wild cards to me. Book did not cooperate (he had been fired so why would he). Robbins and Hek did not provide the NCAA with a copy of our internal investigation (guess they never heard of attorney/client privilege.) Those are the only factors that I can see that they may grab on to.

That's where you hope the IARP helps. Ok. St. cooperated and got drilled.

The NCAA hasn't used cooperation in mitigation, which you hope the IARP understands. Also, we elected IARP early on, so you'd hope we presented to them instead of the NCAA.

Well they have used that because that was part of the reason they said Ok ST got drilled. The asst did not cooperate because he was terminated.

"Evans, who never had to speak at trial due to pleading guilty, did not cooperate with the NCAA's investigation. That was a factor in Oklahoma State's punishment, a source told CBS Sports." It should also be noted that they said because the rest of Ok.St. cooperated they only got a 1 year band and 3 scholly's in a 3 year period when the guidelines called for a TWO year ban. I will loose my shit if this happens.

That's why you hope IARP is better. Ok. St. was pretty outraged their institution cooperated fully and they still got one of the stiffest penalties of the bunch.

As for an assistant not talking, it's again indicative of how stuck in clown town the NCAA enforcement process is. This is a federal case where coaches are getting prison time and the NCAA is assessing penalties for invoking the 5th.

This isn't some BS where a penalty for a coach might be a game suspension, their words could send them to prison and the NCAA acts like that's not a thing.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:39 am That's why you hope IARP is better. Ok. St. was pretty outraged their institution cooperated fully and they still got one of the stiffest penalties of the bunch.

As for an assistant not talking, it's again indicative of how stuck in clown town the NCAA enforcement process is. This is a federal case where coaches are getting prison time and the NCAA is assessing penalties for invoking the 5th.

This isn't some BS where a penalty for a coach might be a game suspension, their words could send them to prison and the NCAA acts like that's not a thing.

Yeah and then additionally: the school has already severed ties with the assistant, so how are you going to punish the school for the assistant (who they do not control in any fashion) not cooperating? The clear punishment there is to simply adjust the show cause period on the assistant based upon their level of cooperation.

Otherwise... what is the school to do? Continue to employ the guilty party contingent upon their cooperation? Send a couple of roughnecks to the guy's door?

This is also why I think that clawbacks should be standard and mandatory in NCAA coaching contracts, such that if a coach breaks the rules or does not cooperate in an investigation their pay would be clawed back as a penalty. I would structure a base pay and then additional compensation (including any performance based bonuses) that would be essentially be granted and later vested / escrowed and released (assuming no foul behavior). In some ways I'm reminded of the equity vesting structure we used to retain Rich Rod and Miller.

The NCAA is still trying to extract information from Book

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/coll ... story.html

That article is from 18 months ago.