1. Marquette was aware of the pending NCAA legislation that will pin responsibility and penalties on the head coach for any violation within his or her staff. That's why Golden Eagles athletic director Larry Williams suspended head coach Buzz Williams for the first Big East game of the season even though the violation was pinned on assistant Scott Monarch, who was ultimately fired (for providing transportation for a recruit and not giving honest answers when questioned). A Marquette official said the university was using precedence about head coach accountability (see Jim Calhoun, Donnie Jones and Bruce Pearl). According to the official, the past cases played a role in the decision-making process. The NCAA still hasn't ruled on the Marquette case and could impose additional penalties.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/66168/3-point-shot-accountability-at-marquette
They could, but they won't.
Agreed, though if not for the self-imposed suspension, they might have. Erring on the side of caution may have been the best thing for Marquette in this case.
They made right decision. LW made right call there and think he deserves credit for it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on October 30, 2012, 10:01:21 AM
Agreed, though if not for the self-imposed suspension, they might have. Erring on the side of caution may have been the best thing for Marquette in this case.
Yes, but more importantly, the fact that holding head coaches responsible for assistant coach violations is the right thing to do....and sends the appropriate message to Buzz and other D1 head coaches. The assistants have been falll guys for too long. LW did the right thing for more reasons than one...Im a big fan. Vindication.
Huggins should no longer be coaching D1 basketball for all the stuff his assistants got caught doing (and not caught) during his tenure at UC.
In other words, plausible deniability no longer flies for NCAA coaches.
Should we reading into Katz's use of the phrase "pinned on"? He could have said even though Scott Monarch was responsible for the violation.
Quote from: Knight Commission on October 30, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
Should we reading into Katz's use of the phrase "pinned on"?
If I say "no," that likely wouldn't prevent you from doing so anyway.
Quote from: Knight Commission on October 30, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
Should we reading into Katz's use of the phrase "pinned on"? He could have said even though Scott Monarch was responsible for the violation.
I'd say no. Too much was made of how it was the lying and not the act itself that cost Monarch his job. I don't think there's much more to it.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 10:37:17 AM
If I say "no," that likely wouldn't prevent you from doing so anyway.
Lets just say it wouldn't surprise me if the Monarchs get an extra nice Christmas present from the Williams family this year.
Quote from: Knight Commission on October 30, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
Should we reading into Katz's use of the phrase "pinned on"? He could have said even though Scott Monarch was responsible for the violation.
Ugh. No. Don't. Please.
This board has parsed, chopped, sliced, diced and julienned every quote ever written about LW & BW.
Just keep the context as it stands and let's not get crazy.
It appears like MU did the right thing. We'll have to see if that works out for BW and LW.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 10:22:13 AM
In other words, plausible deniability no longer flies for NCAA coaches.
Mike Krzyzewski disagrees.
Yahoo Sports story on the new rules
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--ncaa-establishes-stiff-sanctions-for-coaches-who-break-rules-30371409.html
Quote from: Hamostradamus on October 30, 2012, 11:06:16 AM
Mike Krzyzewski disagrees.
Unless Lance Thomas' jeweler is an assistant coach, Duke athletic dept. employee or Duke booster, Krzyzewski has nothing to be worried about.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 11:09:18 AM
Unless Lance Thomas' jeweler is an assistant coach, Duke athletic dept. employee or Duke booster, Krzyzewski has nothing to be worried about.
He was given special treatment because of who he was. Lance Thomas' jeweler can deny it up and down the street, but actions speak louder than words.
Lance Thomas' jeweler could have an office in Duke's Athletic Department and Coah K would still have nothing to worry about.
"The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, it's going to give Cleveland State two more years' probation." - Jerry Tarkanian
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on October 30, 2012, 11:21:49 AM
He was given special treatment because of who he was. Lance Thomas' jeweler can deny it up and down the street, but actions speak louder than words.
OK.
Still has nothing to do with the NCAA's new penalty structure.
Are we going to punish a head coach every time a player gets a free drink because of who he is, too?
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 11:40:12 AM
OK.
Still has nothing to do with the NCAA's new penalty structure.
Are we going to punish a head coach every time a player gets a free drink because of who he is, too?
Who knows. It all comes down to selective enforcement.
Quote from: Hamostradamus on October 30, 2012, 11:25:49 AM
Lance Thomas' jeweler could have an office in Duke's Athletic Department and Coah K would still have nothing to worry about.
"The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, it's going to give Cleveland State two more years' probation." - Jerry Tarkanian
The irony is that not long after Tarkanian made those remarks, the NCAA imposed on Kentucky some of the heaviest penalties ever handed down on a basketball program, and spared them the death penalty only because UK cooperated with investigators and hired CM Newton to clean up the program.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on October 30, 2012, 11:21:49 AM
He was given special treatment because of who he was. Lance Thomas' jeweler can deny it up and down the street, but actions speak louder than words.
+1
Memphis had to vacate its final four because of "strict liability" in the Derek Rose fraudulent SAT case. It did not matter that Memphis had nothing to do with Rose rigging his SAT score, Memphis and Calipari were punished for it.
Unless the NCAA explains why strict liability does NOT apply in this case, then they are all but saying that Duke is allowed to cheat and get away with it.
The 2010 National Champs - Butler Bulldogs
---
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/20096356/would-the-ncaa-really-strip-duke-of-the-2010-national-title
But how in the world was Duke supposed to know about this, Parrish?
In fairness, that's a reasonable question. But it's also beside the point because the NCAA set a precedent of "strict liability" when it stripped Memphis of its trip to the 2008 Final Four. The NCAA concluded after Derrick Rose's college career was complete that somebody took the SAT for him, that his qualifying score wasn't his qualifying score. So the NCAA ruled the subsequent NBA Most Valuable Player ineligible and stripped Memphis of its Final Four even though the NCAA never charged Memphis with any wrongdoing or suggested Memphis knew about Rose's fraudulent SAT or even should've known about Rose's fraudulent SAT.
^ but in Rose's case since he never personally passed the SAT he was not eligible for college sports (or classes for that matter)
Lance Thomas' situation is a bit different since he was an eligible player that received impermissible benefits
Correct. Lance Thomas was more like Marcus Camby, who took benefits from agents. This resulted in UMass vacating their Final Four appearance.
It is obvious that Duke is being given a pass. No precedent being followed at all.
Duke is special. Duke is different. When they cheat we look the other way and rationalize. And yes, they cheat.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/20290116/will-coach-k-duke-skate-again-yes-unless-the-heat-stays-on-blue-devils
Nothing happened to Duke in 1999.
Nothing will happen to Duke in 2010.
Before I continue with the hypocrisy of the NCAA, let me make a few points about Duke in 1999: In a vacuum, I don't necessarily think Duke should have been punished because freshman Corey Maggette accepted $2,000 from an AAU coach while in high school -- a violation of NCAA rules. Technically, Maggette shouldn't have been eligible for the entire 1998-99 season, and by using him to win 37 games and reach the title game, Duke was using an ineligible player. Therefore that Final Four appearance should be vacated. The banner at Cameron Indoor Stadium should come down.
It didn't in 1999, although it held three other schools accountable for the sins of AAU coach Myron Piggie: UCLA, Oklahoma State and Missouri. All three schools had to suspend players who were given money in high school by Piggie, because the payments were discovered while that trio was still in college. Maggette? He was long gone. He turned pro after his freshman season. The NCAA couldn't suspend him in the NBA, but the NCAA didn't even pursue Duke's ill-gotten 1999 victories or NCAA tournament revenue -- even though an NCAA official acknowledged in 2000 that precedent said Duke should pay somehow.
"I expect [Duke] will lose 45 percent of the revenue earned at the 1999 NCAA tournament," NCAA public information coordinator Jane Janikowski said, "plus an automatic vacation of their performance in the tournament. In all the cases that have been similar to this one, that is what the precedent has been."
Not anymore, it's not. Duke got away with something that no school ever gets away with, and why? I can't tell you. If the sun rose tomorrow in the west, I wouldn't be able to explain that, either. Even if I saw it with my own eyes, as I did with Duke in 1999.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 02:10:44 PM
Correct. Lance Thomas was more like Marcus Camby, who took benefits from agents. This resulted in UMass vacating their Final Four appearance.
It is obvious that Duke is being given a pass. No precedent being followed at all.
Little soon to be suggesting Duke is getting a pass. The NCAA took a year from the time it opened its Rose/Memphis investigation until it handed down its notice of violations. And then took another three months before issuing penalties.
The Lance Thomas situation just surfaced seven weeks ago.
But everyone loves a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Goose on October 30, 2012, 10:14:57 AM
They made right decision. LW made right call there and think he deserves credit for it.
Yes, LW did make the right call. But he's still a Domer. ;)
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 02:26:51 PM
Little soon to be suggesting Duke is getting a pass. The NCAA took a year from the time it opened its Rose/Memphis investigation until it handed down its notice of violations. And then took another three months before issuing penalties.
The Lance Thomas situation just surfaced seven weeks ago.
But everyone loves a conspiracy theory.
OK...fair point. I seriously doubt anything remotely approaching what the NCAA did to UMass and Memphis though.
And that doesn't exonerate them looking the other way in the Maggette situation either.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 10:22:13 AM
In other words, plausible deniability no longer flies for NCAA coaches.
Fiction. It did for Auburn and Cam Newton.
Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on October 30, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
Fiction. It did for Auburn and Cam Newton.
Ummm, yeah.
You understand that these NEW rules weren't in effect two years ago, right?
And these new rules don't address that situation.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 02:32:56 PM
OK...fair point. I seriously doubt anything remotely approaching what the NCAA did to UMass and Memphis though.
And that doesn't exonerate them looking the other way in the Maggette situation either.
As far as Duke goes, Sultan should be talking to someone - say along the lines of a next-of-kin - who is known to be hanging around Butler's campus these days... despite everyone's understanding that Butler won't be awarded the 2010 title under any reasonable circumstances, it's not out of the question that there would be keen interest all along the White River over the possibility that Duke's 2010 title may be vacated.
Given the disproportionate number of Butler alums, staffers, students & well-wishers living, working and playing within close proximity of the NCAA offices (not to mention the fact that those frequenting the latter often mix with the former after 5:00 p.m.) if there was even the slightest hint of guarded optimism around the house that Hinkle built today, I would be very nervous if I were a Dookie.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 03:22:53 PM
Ummm, yeah.
You understand that these NEW rules weren't in effect two years ago, right?
And these new rules don't address that situation.
I'm confused. There is "pending" legislation that will make the head coach responsible for the misdeeds of his assistants. Pending meaning not yet approved, not yet on the books. Assuming it ends up being NCAA law, is it retroactive, and if so, how far will the NCAA go back?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 30, 2012, 03:38:05 PM
I'm confused. There is "pending" legislation that will make the head coach responsible for the misdeeds of his assistants. Pending meaning not yet approved, not yet on the books. Assuming it ends up being NCAA law, is it retroactive, and if so, how far will the NCAA go back?
The new rules were approved this morning by the NCAA's board of Directors, and will become effective on cases ruled on beginning Aug. 1, 2013.
Quote from: Benny B on October 30, 2012, 03:34:21 PM
As far as Duke goes, Sultan should be talking to someone - say along the lines of a next-of-kin - who is known to be hanging around Butler's campus these days... despite everyone's understanding that Butler won't be awarded the 2010 title under any reasonable circumstances, it's not out of the question that there would be keen interest all along the White River over the possibility that Duke's 2010 title may be vacated.
Given the disproportionate number of Butler alums, staffers, students & well-wishers living, working and playing within close proximity of the NCAA offices (not to mention the fact that those frequenting the latter often mix with the former after 5:00 p.m.) if there was even the slightest hint of guarded optimism around the house that Hinkle built today, I would be very nervous if I were a Dookie.
I don't think most schools are all that excited about receiving titles because the team that beat them on the court had a win vacated. I honestly doubt Butler cares all that much.
EDIT: Put it this way...would we really be hanging another banner if for some reason the NCAA vacated NC State's 1974 championship because David Thompson was declared an illegal player?
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 03:43:45 PM
The new rules were approved this morning by the NCAA's board of Directors, and will become effective on cases ruled on beginning Aug. 1, 2013.
So the Monarch situation isn't applicable to these new rules?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 30, 2012, 04:49:41 PM
So the Monarch situation isn't applicable to these new rules?
Depends when the NCAA chooses to rule on that matter.
Regardless, MU saw the writing on the wall, knew how the NCAA wanted its members to approach these matters and acted accordingly. Better to act proactively than let the NCAA decide your punishment for you, don't you think?
Quote from: Pakuni on October 30, 2012, 05:00:01 PM
Depends when the NCAA chooses to rule on that matter.
Regardless, MU saw the writing on the wall, knew how the NCAA wanted its members to approach these matters and acted accordingly. Better to act proactively than let the NCAA decide your punishment for you, don't you think?
So if they choose to rule on the matter after August 2013 MU is subject to rules that didn't exist when the violation(s) took place? Can't believe that's the case.
I will agree, though, that being proactive is probably best where the NCAA is concerned. They are a group who is all about creating perceptions and the more member institutions aid them in that mission the better they like it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 30, 2012, 05:13:45 PM
So if they choose to rule on the matter after August 2013 MU is subject to rules that didn't exist when the violation(s) took place? Can't believe that's the case.
I will agree, though, that being proactive is probably best where the NCAA is concerned. They are a group who is all about creating perceptions and the more member institutions aid them in that mission the better they like it.
According to the NCAA's release on the new rules:
Conduct breaches that occurred before Oct. 30, 2012, but are processed after Aug. 1, 2013, would be subject to the new process but would incur the more lenient of the two penalty structures (current and revised).http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-10-30/di-board-directors-approves-overhauled-enforcement-structure
Remember, the current rules do allow for suspension of coaches (see: Calhoun, Jim) for actions by others associated with the program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
I don't think most schools are all that excited about receiving titles because the team that beat them on the court had a win vacated. I honestly doubt Butler cares all that much.
EDIT: Put it this way...would we really be hanging another banner if for some reason the NCAA vacated NC State's 1974 championship because David Thompson was declared an illegal player?
We went through this last year. We finished second in the BE. When (not if) Syracuse gets busted and has to vacate last season, do we hang a banner as the regular season conference champions?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
I don't think most schools are all that excited about receiving titles because the team that beat them on the court had a win vacated. I honestly doubt Butler cares all that much.
EDIT: Put it this way...would we really be hanging another banner if for some reason the NCAA vacated NC State's 1974 championship because David Thompson was declared an illegal player?
Never said anything about hanging banners or titles being awarded... To your example though, if the facts pointed at NC State using an ineligible player, I would take a small amount of pleasure in watching NC State's banner coming down even though I knew I wasnt getting anything out of it other than the consolation of watching the cheater get punished, especially considering that my season ended at their hand. Call it a poetic victory of sorts.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 30, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
I don't think most schools are all that excited about receiving titles because the team that beat them on the court had a win vacated. I honestly doubt Butler cares all that much.
EDIT: Put it this way...would we really be hanging another banner if for some reason the NCAA vacated NC State's 1974 championship because David Thompson was declared an illegal player?
We wouldn't be hanging a banner because we wouldn't receive the title--we would still officially have a loss recorded in our final game.
The NCAA wouldn't be vacating our loss--only NC State's win.