F the NCAA

[ousdahl]

evidence? sure.

but clear evidence? I dunno. "some way" is pretty vague. (ETA yeah fish nailed it)

Clear evidence would be "we'd be glad to provide occupational opportunities, housing for his fam, and cash in hand, we were thinking of offering XXX much..."

[Deleted User 276]

Is KT saying ...we will have to find a way to get him to Lawrence...but not getting him there really evidence of breaking a rule or just unrealistic chatting?

I'm not sure it matters that much. It shows lack of institutional control and disregard for the rules which is against the "rules".

Reading the explanations by NCAA for some of the other programs punishments that have already been handed down makes me a little worried for our staff.

[jfish26]

Is KT saying ...we will have to find a way to get him to Lawrence...but not getting him there really evidence of breaking a rule or just unrealistic chatting?

I'm not sure it matters that much. It shows lack of institutional control and disregard for the rules which is against the "rules".

Reading the explanations by NCAA for some of the other programs punishments that have already been handed down makes me a little worried for our staff.

I'm not at all saying that what you're worried about won't happen, or that you're being overly paranoid.

That said - it's a huge overreach on the NCAA's part to use non-evidence "evidence" like that exchange as the basis for a decision.

[NewtonHawk11]

Yeah maybe break is a heavy word. But it seems to be a pretty obvious disregard for what the NCAA wants the NCAA to be.

[pdub]

No need to lawyer it up (getting into the exact details of what break means and spending millions of dollars on technicalities) -- we very likely were doing something against NCAA rules, like many other teams.

[jfish26]

No need to lawyer it up (getting into the exact details of what break means and spending millions of dollars on technicalities) -- we very likely were doing something against NCAA rules, like many other teams.

No reasonable person disagrees with this. But there should be a giant, gaping chasm between what we know to be the "evidence" of this, and a place where serious violations result.

[pdub]

The NCAA should absolutely show their work and explain whatever conclusion they come to.
It's fairly clear to me from the info that's been presented so far we've been breaking the rules.
But yes, if they throw the book then they better have a solid collection of evidence.

[jfish26]

And if their "collection of evidence" amounts to not much more than what is publicly known now...then "spending millions of dollars" to fight is probably warranted.

[pdub]

Sure, if the penalty seems like they are setting a new precedent i.e. some sort of death penalty.
But sitting down with lawyers and fighting over the proof of what someone means on the phone about something fairly obvious seems, to me, like a waste of time.

[pdub]

i.e. if they came back, suspended coach Self for 5 games, we lose a scholarship for 2 years and are put on probation, would you lawyer up over something it's pretty obvious you did but now want to pretend you didn't and argue over technicalities?

[jfish26]

i.e. if they came back, suspended coach Self for 5 games, we lose a scholarship for 2 years and are put on probation, would you lawyer up over something it's pretty obvious you did but now want to pretend you didn't and argue over technicalities?

The pragmatic answer in that scenario is no, in large part because fighting could expose you to worse things being uncovered (and punished).

That said - I think scholarship reductions are the most ethically and morally shameful punishments out there, so my immediate urge was to say yes, burn it down.

[pdub]

The most ethically and morally shameful punishments out there?
I hope you mean in terms of what the NCAA hands down?
On the larger scheme of things it doesn't rate on the richter scale.

[jfish26]

The most ethically and morally shameful punishments out there?
I hope you mean in terms of what the NCAA hands down?
On the larger scheme of things it doesn't rate on the richter scale.

Yes, of course.

[jfish26]

How about this shit:



You mean to tell me that Zion's shoe deal would have been meaningfully less had he gone to UK, Kansas, UNC, etc.?

Shorts on backwards. Head up ass.

[pdub]

LOL.
Good one Doug.
Tray Young did just fine at OU.

[Deleted User 276]

I think he means had he never gone to college period. Not that duke made him 60M more than another college would have.

[Deleted User 276]

Either way Mr. ShortsOnBackwards should do a little research....



Now I'm not saying Zion was as hyped as LeBron (or is as good)....but coming in as rookies they're on a similar echelon when it comes to marketing value. LeBron was coming in during the early social media/internet sensation era, but Zion has been maybe the biggest youtube sensation we've seen... so while not Lebron, still very valuable to a shoe company.

So in conclusion, Doug is an idiot, and Duke/the NCAA did not make ALL that difference he mentions. God, Doug is insufferable nearly 100% of the time now. It's insane.

[jfish26]

These two things are both true:

1. Zion is not nearly as good at basketball as LeBron was coming out of high school.

2. LeBron was not nearly as popular as Zion was coming out of high school.

It's just a completely different world.

[Deleted User 89]

and the change happened soooo fast

[Lonestarjayhawk]

Yeah maybe break is a heavy word. But it seems to be a pretty obvious disregard for what the NCAA wants the NCAA to be.

And UNC's easy degree without tests, attending class or anything near learning is what the NCAA wants the NCAA to be?

NCAA is counterintuitive...