Violations at Duke??

[tornado]

.... It is quite possible, and in this case I'd even say probably likely, that Duke had no idea that this nimrod went and borrowed money from the jeweler in the first place. I am a bit hesitant to blame an institution ..

but didn't NCAA CLEARLY state and have repeated stood by their determination (as in the 2005 Bradley case_ - that all of that DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL!

It is completely irrelevant whether the institution knew or even had any way of knowing that the violation occurred or may have occurred...
NCAA's current precent as established MANY TIMES - most notably the Derrick Rose SAT Test & of course the BU summer job INADVERTENT overpay - is........

THAT if they rule the violations/impermissible benefits occurred, then...

#1- the player is still deemed ineligible and must either serve his penalty as an ineligible player - or if he played while he was ineligible - those wins MUST BE VACATED/forfeited.

#2- whether the school knew or not they STILL bear responsibilty and thus THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!! This is the strange ruling they laid on Bradley - that BU was responsible for the inadvertent overpay that occurred during the summer when he was NOT in school (and in WF's case - it occurred even before he enrolled at Bradley and began classes).


And with RARE exception - the courts have declined to rule on NCAA business because it's a private organization of consenting members who have agreed to abide by NCAA's ruling.

http://www.athletesincourt.com/2012/06/appeals-court-throws-out-scholarship-suit-against-the-ncaa/

EVEN when a STATE LAW is passed that virtually mandates a school violate an NCAA ruling - the courts tend to uphold NCAA rather than the legitimately passed act of the state's legislature.

http://www.athletesincourt.com/2012/02/continued-fighting-in-north-dakota-over-the-fighting-sioux/

also - your comment...
"entered into a CONSENT DECREE with the NCAA. They can't argue the punishment after they already accepted it"

...this logic is basically what every school does when they sign and agree to JOIN the NCAA - they CONSENT to abide by the NCAA's discipline & ruling - and yet - as you point out - they sometimes DO fight the rulings in court.
Bottom line is that anyone can sue anyone at any time over any issue - we've all seen the proof of that when people sue over coffee being hot and smokers suing the very people who offered the stuff for sale that they chose to consume.

[DoubleJayAlum]

but didn't NCAA CLEARLY state and have repeated stood by their determination (as in the 2005 Bradley case_ - that all of that DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL!

In your quote, you conveniently cut off the part where I said, "unless it involves a booster or was arranged by a school."

That is what happened in the 2005 Bradley case; the owner of the company involved was a Bradley booster. On top of that, the offenders were still in school when the illegal acts were discovered, so the school and the players had to participate in the investigation. In the Duke case, Thomas can't be compelled to participate in any investigation.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Bottom line is that anyone can sue anyone at any time over any issue

So true. It is one of the things that makes our country special - every individual, regardless of means, has the right to have their grievance heard by an independent arbiter.

Anyone may be able to bring a suit, but not everyone will prevail on that suit. You have to have evidence and be able to prove your position. The act of simply filing suit itself does not grant or award the person bringing the suit a darn thing. Only the uneducated or paranoid think otherwise.

[tornado]

I know there are differences - no two cases are exactly the same - but what IS the same...
is that regardless of whether a booster is involved (and there are suspicions that maybe some booster helped Thomas get the $$ or backed the credit line...)
accepting any freebies (extra benefits) because of your status as a jock IS a violation (Ohio State- free tattoos for autographs or shoes, or Kansas - free VIP passes just because they were ballers, free plane fights like John Wall)...and if NCAA deems such then he played while he would have been ineligible.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I know there are differences - no two cases are exactly the same - but what IS the same...
is that regardless of whether a booster is involved (and there are suspicions that maybe some booster helped Thomas get the $$ or backed the credit line...)
accepting any freebies (extra benefits) because of your status as a jock IS a violation (Ohio State- free tattoos for autographs or shoes, or Kansas - free VIP passes just because they were ballers, free plane fights like John Wall)...and if NCAA deems such then he played while he would have been ineligible.

Even if you are right, you still have to PROVE he got those benefits. Just because he was sued by somebody, it doesn't mean the allegations in the lawsuit are true nor does it constitute PROOF in any way, shape or form. Since the case was settled and the jeweler told the NCAA to kiss off, we don't have any of the documents (unless they were attached to the petition/complaint). As you said above, "anybody can sue anybody else for anything" so one shouldn't rely on the mere existence of a lawsuit as evidence of anything. Otherwise, I could file a series of lawsuits tomorrow alleging that every quality basketball player in the country not wearing Creighton blue got illegal benefits!

[tornado]

sure - NCAA is always "supposed to prove" the violations occurred - but what constitutes proof??

In a court - at least it's gotta be the opinions of 12 people, but with the NCAA it might just need to be the opinions of two or three.....
The NCAA Committee on Infractions has always had just 10 members with certain guys abstaining if they have conflicts or are in that conference - thus a majority might be easy for a couple people to determine

[tornado]

apparently one of the topics on the Duke & Carolina message boards is the fact that Thomas was known to have gotten booted from an off campus apartment because he did not have the $$ to pay the rent.
NCAA might then wonder where he got the $30K to buy bling...

[tornado]

here's a remotely similar case.......

a kid at New Mexico playing for Steve Alford - throws a party and "rents" a ballroom at the local Marriott Hotel ...
He received a "discounted rate" when he rented the ballroom and supposedly he got the discount because he was one of the team's players...
he has since even paid back the difference so everything is square - but the violation - or "extra benefit" or "impermissible benefit" still had already occurred.
This is an NCAA violation and the kid is thus ineligible for the next 3 games..

http://www.abqjournal.com/sports/2012/11/01/discount-at-hotel-spurred-penalty.html

The way this unfolded - was that the player put lots of pictures of his wild birthday party on his Facebook. One of the local newspaper guys decided to ask a couple questions since he knew that the people who operated the local Marriott were big Lobo boosters. Once the reporter caught wind that someone paid for the party using a Lobo Booster discount card...then the kid had one of two options...he could claim someone else paid for the party so that it wasn't he who got the discount - but then he'd have been guilty of accepting the entire value of the rented ballroom as an impermissible benefit....
or he could claim he paid for the ballroom himself using the discount card and DID get the discount - which means the ruling on what was impermissible was just the roughly $300 discount he got. He chose to claim the latter when there are some who believe it actually may have been the first option!
If indeed $300 is roughly 1/10th the value of the ballroom rental - then we're probably talking a total cost of at least $4000-$5000 or even much more for the entire party ...
Hmmm....as in the Duke kid buying $100K in jewelry -- where does a college kid get that kind of money to blow on a birthday bash??



BTW -- Michigan's Trey Burke is suspended -LINK...
and is one of ISU's players - LINK