http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8601441/ncaa-rules-two-indiana-hoosiers-players-miss-9-games
This has nothing to do with Crean or IU bashing, just that to me the punishment does not fit the crime. Last year Juan Anderson suspended 3 games for accepting Brewers playoff tickets. Tickets cost what maybe $300?!
These guys only suspended 9 games for benefits somewhere between $6000 and $8000 ?-(
Whatever.
"NCAA officials determined that Jurkin and Perea accepted approximately $6,000 and $8,000, respectively, in impermissible benefits from an Indiana University booster while they were in high school. The benefits included plane tickets, meals, housing, a laptop, cellphone and clothing."
Slap on the wrist with the suspension for 9 games?!
Squirmy.
Knight Commission has revealed his character before.
I thought Crean was squeaky clean.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34113.0
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 06, 2012, 08:45:53 PM
I thought Crean was squeaky clean.
like a back alley hand job.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on November 06, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
like a back alley hand job.
... with LOTS of tanning lotion.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 06, 2012, 08:34:29 PM
If this was MU you'd want the coach beheaded.
He would. And he'd be wrong.
And if the NCAA suspended two promising freshman because of they associated with a guy who made a series of tiny donations in the late 1980s, plenty of people here would be having a fit (and blaming Larry Williams).
Quote from: Pakuni on November 06, 2012, 11:40:35 PM
He would. And he'd be wrong.
And if the NCAA suspended two promising freshman because of they associated with a guy who made a series of tiny donations in the late 1980s, plenty of people here would be having a fit (and blaming Larry Williams).
Sports Illustrated does a much better job of explaining this story than the so-called "worldwide leader."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/ncaa/11/06/indiana-player-suspensions.ap/index.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/ncaa/11/06/indiana-player-suspensions.ap/index.html)
It does, however, explain why MU takes the whole "booster" thing so seriously. We better hope that nobody assoicated with Burton, Wilson or McKay gave a couple hundred bucks to MU during the Dukiet or O'Neill era.
Another NCAA joke. Apparently the only reason these guys are being suspended is because their AAU coach is considered a booster because he gave a gift to IU basketball about 20 years ago. Otherwise the benefits were OK.
Yep, they received benefits that are considered pretty standard for kids as part of an AAU team. Because the coach happened to give $185 to Indiana before the kids were even born the NCAA considers him a booster and the benefits impermissible. Super lame. If they were our freshmen we'd be livid.
This ruling is absolutely absurd, especially when it appears the "booster" and IU were very much above board with everything. Seems to me the NCAA must have been uncomfortable with something and looking for anything to hang its hat on in issuing the punishments it imposed. IU folks are out of their minds over this one, and I can't blame them. I feel bad for the players.
For those people who forgot about Mark Adams. TC sleeping with the devil. Win at all cost.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6587668
It's obvious that Glass is trying to screw TC.
Because of the Baylor-IU thing, the NCAA had to find something I guess. Lame. Kinda like getting Al Capone on income tax evasion. To me, the bigger question would be: IU was still on major probation when this and another minor recruiting violation by CTC occurred--doesn't this require NCAA action on the institution?
Apparently not. Screw over the kids again, but go soft of the favored member schools like UNC, IU, Duke.
Quote from: chapman on November 07, 2012, 06:52:03 AM
Yep, they received benefits that are considered pretty standard for kids as part of an AAU team. Because the coach happened to give $185 to Indiana before the kids were even born the NCAA considers him a booster and the benefits impermissible. Super lame. If they were our freshmen we'd be livid.
Apparently IU doesn't send out the same kind of info that Marquette does. The Blue and Gold fund brochure we got yesterday clearly spells out that if you do anything, even once, that marks you as a booster (donating money, providing any kind of service to the program, etc.), the NCAA considers you to be a booster FOR LIFE. Anyone that involved in AAU programs should have known that.
When's the last time anyone won their case using the "that's a stupid rule/law" defense? And why should this be the first?
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 09:11:48 AM
When's the last time anyone won their case using the "that's a stupid rule/law" defense? And why should this be the first?
True, but the NCAA really needs to review this rule. Amazing that they could find those records from over 2 decades ago. Guess IU does not ahave a records retention program under which records are destroyed after a certain # of years. Even the IRS does not require records after 7 years.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 06, 2012, 11:40:35 PM
He would. And he'd be wrong.
And if the NCAA suspended two promising freshman because of they associated with a guy who made a series of tiny donations in the late 1980s, plenty of people here would be having a fit (and blaming Larry Williams).
They "associated" with Adams to the tune of $14,000 of illegal benefits (that they know about). The booster stuff may be a technicality, but Adams really became a booster when Crean hired his kid and the Indiana Elite floodgates opened up for Crean. Like Dr Blackheart said, this is analogous to Al Capone going to prison for tax evasion when other, more serious stuff couldn't be proven.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 09:45:50 AM
They "associated" with Adams to the tune of $14,000 of illegal benefits (that they know about). The booster stuff may be a technicality, but Adams really became a booster when Crean hired his kid and the Indiana Elite floodgates opened up for Crean. Like Dr Blackheart said, this is analogous to Al Capone going to prison for tax evasion when other, more serious stuff couldn't be proven.
I agree, and something needed to be done.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 09:45:50 AM
They "associated" with Adams to the tune of $14,000 of illegal benefits (that they know about). The booster stuff may be a technicality, but Adams really became a booster when Crean hired his kid and the Indiana Elite floodgates opened up for Crean. Like Dr Blackheart said, this is analogous to Al Capone going to prison for tax evasion when other, more serious stuff couldn't be proven.
Silly me, I was working under the notion that we only punish people when wrongdoing can be proven, not because of suspicion and innuendo. Good thing that was at least the case after some MU player hijinks in October 2010.
The only thing that made these benefits "illegal" was that Adams gave IU a whopping total of $185 over a 6-year period more than two decades ago.
Seriously, does any objective source out there think IU and these players were treated fairly?
Jay Bilas is right. The NCAA enforcement division is out of control in emphasizing minor/tenuously connected misconduct, issuing out of proportion sanctions (NINE games to these kids who did NOTHING wrong) and punishing the wrong people (the student athlete rather than the school or the program in some other way, if any punishment is merited). All the time. It is ridiculous.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 10:23:25 AM
Silly me, I was working under the notion that we only punish people when wrongdoing can be proven, not because of suspicion and innuendo. Good thing that was at least the case after some MU player hijinks in October 2010.
The only thing that made these benefits "illegal" was that Adams gave IU a whopping total of $185 over a 6-year period more than two decades ago.
Seriously, does any objective source out there think IU and these players were treated fairly?
No. But rules are rules, and Adams broke them. He can complain about how ridiculous the rule is, but he also needs to accept complete responsibility for the suspension. The NCAA didn't treat IU and the players unfairly, Adams did.
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
No. But rules are rules, and Adams broke them. He can complain about how ridiculous the rule is, but he also needs to accept complete responsibility for the suspension. The NCAA didn't treat IU and the players unfairly, Adams did.
For sure, Adams should have known 25 years ago that buying some stickers for his wife's car window would lead to ridiculous suspensions for kids who had yet to be born.
I mean, it was sooooo obvious.
Hooray for enforcement of the stupid.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 10:51:02 AM
For sure, Adams should have known 25 years ago that buying some stickers for his wife's car window would lead to ridiculous suspensions for kids who had yet to be born.
I mean, it was sooooo obvious.
Hooray for enforcement of the stupid.
No... he should have known that he was still considered an IU booster when he doled out thousands of dollars in benefits to these kids and then funneled them to IU just a few months ago.
Stupid is as stupid does. And Adams did.
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 10:59:41 AM
No... he should have known that he was still considered an IU booster when he doled out thousands of dollars in benefits to these kids and then funneled them to IU just a few months ago.
Stupid is as stupid does. And Adams did.
Really? So he can no longer send his AAU players to IU because of a gift he made 20 years ago? So no player who is even remotely interested in playing at IU can risk playing for his AAU team? This makes sense to you?
Felons get more leeway than this. Honestly, how anyone can defend this stupid, wrong-headed decision by the NCAA is beyond me.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 10:23:25 AM
Silly me, I was working under the notion that we only punish people when wrongdoing can be proven, not because of suspicion and innuendo. Good thing that was at least the case after some MU player hijinks in October 2010.
Silly indeed. Like it or hate it (I hate it), the NCAA is a voluntarily joined organization. They don't need the kind of proof required in our criminal courts. They can be as vague (I love the whole "lack of institutional control" thing) and as arbitrary as they please.
That said, does anyone anywhere (other than Chicos) think that this whole "arrangement" (hiring sons of coaches, making sons of board members preferred walk ons, etc., then, Voila! being suddenly funneled all that program's best players) isn't a quid pro quo that's squirmworthy? That would be an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 11:18:46 AM
Silly indeed. Like it or hate it (I hate it), the NCAA is a voluntarily joined organization. They don't need the kind of proof required in our criminal courts. They can be as vague (I love the whole "lack of institutional control" thing) and as arbitrary as they please.
That said, does anyone anywhere (other than Chicos) think that this whole "arrangement" (hiring sons of coaches, making sons of board members preferred walk ons, etc., then, Voila! being suddenly funneled all that program's best players) isn't a quid pro quo that's squirmworthy? That would be an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Actually, the NCAA establishes itself as a quasi-legal organization with clearly stated rules outlining the enforcement process. They cannot be as vague as they please, and they do need proof before issuing sanctions. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof nonetheless.
Sure it's squirmworthy. I said that when the ESPN report came out last year.
But I still have the old-fashioned belief that one shouldn't be punished based simply on an accusation.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 07, 2012, 11:14:20 AM
Honestly, how anyone can defend this stupid, wrong-headed decision by the NCAA is beyond me.
It might have something to do with the coach at Indiana.
Just a guess.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 11:49:21 AM
Actually, the NCAA establishes itself as a quasi-legal organization with clearly stated rules outlining the enforcement process. They cannot be as vague as they please, and they do need proof before issuing sanctions. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof nonetheless.
True, but when the regulator is the investigator, judge, jury and executioner how much real proof do they need?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 12:09:27 PM
True, but when the regulator is the investigator, judge, jury and executioner how much real proof do they need?
That's not correct.
Both the NCAA infractions committee and infractions appeals committee are made up primarily of representatives of NCAA members, i.e. school administrators, professors, conference officials, etc.
Schools literally make their cases before a jury of their peers. Sanctions aren't handed down by NCAA administrators. They're handed down by NCAA members.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 11:18:46 AM
Silly indeed. Like it or hate it (I hate it), the NCAA is a voluntarily joined organization. They don't need the kind of proof required in our criminal courts. They can be as vague (I love the whole "lack of institutional control" thing) and as arbitrary as they please.
That said, does anyone anywhere (other than Chicos) think that this whole "arrangement" (hiring sons of coaches, making sons of board members preferred walk ons, etc., then, Voila! being suddenly funneled all that program's best players) isn't a quid pro quo that's squirmworthy? That would be an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Of course it is squirmy. It also breaks no rule. At some point the NCAA cant simply legislate everything in an attempt to have a perfectly level playing field - especially when kids get caught in the cross hairs as a result. Life isn't fair...deal with it.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 12:17:02 PM
That's not correct.
Both the NCAA infractions committee and infractions appeals committee are made up primarily of representatives of NCAA members, i.e. school administrators, professors, conference officials, etc.
Schools literally make their cases before a jury of their peers. Sanctions aren't handed down by NCAA administrators. They're handed down by NCAA members.
Well, if these sanctions followed due process and were meted out by a jury of IU's peers I guess no one has a reason to complain. Didn't know that.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 12:30:29 PM
Well, if these sanctions followed due process and were meted out by a jury of IU's peers I guess no one has a reason to complain. Didn't know that.
Right, right.
Cause they never get anything wrong.
We can agree on three things:
1) The noted infraction is lame.
2) The wrong parties (the kids) bore the brunt of the penalty, rather harshly for the crime of some one else years ago.
3) Indiana basketball has now been cited by the NCAA for three minor infractions while they were still on major NCAA probation.
Can we also agree?:
1) The NCAA must have felt there was a deeper reason to mete out such a harsh penalty--whether with direct proof or circumstantial of more squirminess, per ESPN.
2) CTC has incurred three minor NCAA violations on his watch, but he does not have to sit out a game to be held accountable.
3) Indiana's major NCAA probation period was violated three times with these minor violations, but suffered little for said violations. The NCAA must have a double-secret probation clause for certain schools.
Quote from: MU_MM08 on November 06, 2012, 07:57:26 PM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8601441/ncaa-rules-two-indiana-hoosiers-players-miss-9-games
This has nothing to do with Crean or IU bashing, just that to me the punishment does not fit the crime. Last year Juan Anderson suspended 3 games for accepting Brewers playoff tickets. Tickets cost what maybe $300?!
These guys only suspended 9 games for benefits somewhere between $6000 and $8000 ?-(
The benefits were a place to live, food, school supplies and travel back to Africa to visit their families, provided through a foundation Adams runs that brings foreign kids to the U.S. to play ball in hopes of getting a scholarship.
I have trouble with the idea that a small donation made several years ago makes you a booster. When an AAU coach or someone like Worldwide Wes(?) routinely steers players to Calipari and is not considered a booster. It would seem to me that you are a booster if you are steering players to a particular program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 07, 2012, 11:14:20 AM
Really? So he can no longer send his AAU players to IU because of a gift he made 20 years ago? So no player who is even remotely interested in playing at IU can risk playing for his AAU team? This makes sense to you?
Felons get more leeway than this. Honestly, how anyone can defend this stupid, wrong-headed decision by the NCAA is beyond me.
Stupid rule? Agreed.
Shortsighted decision? Agreed.
Selective enforcement? Sure.
Kids unfairly caught in the cross hairs? Absolutely.
None of that changes the fact that
ADAMS VIOLATED NCAA RULES. Stealing bread to feed your starving family is
still stealing. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?
Quote from: bilsu on November 07, 2012, 02:28:46 PM
I have trouble with the idea that a small donation made several years ago makes you a booster. When an AAU coach or someone like Worldwide Wes(?) routinely steers players to Calipari and is not considered a booster. It would seem to me that you are a booster if you are steering players to a particular program.
I agree. It's nitpicking that Adam's is considered a booster because he gave $185 to IU 25 years ago. OTOH, it's ridiculous to think that the same guy (whose kid was hired by IU and has since funneled all of his top talent there) isn't a booster now.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 07, 2012, 01:58:33 PM
The benefits were a place to live, food, school supplies and travel back to Africa to visit their families, provided through a foundation Adams runs that brings foreign kids to the U.S. to play ball in hopes of getting a scholarship.
Interested to know who made the biggest donations to his foundation....
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 09:11:48 AM
When's the last time anyone won their case using the "that's a stupid rule/law" defense? And why should this be the first?
The Supreme Court hears these kinds of cases every session.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on November 07, 2012, 02:47:26 PM
The Supreme Court hears these kinds of cases every session.
My bad... I was using it in the context of more low-brow issues with which we might be more familiar: underage drinking, not showing up to class, GPA requirements, why can't MU be more like ND, sales tax on seat donations, etc.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on November 07, 2012, 02:47:26 PM
The Supreme Court hears these kinds of cases every session.
Do the Supremes hear complaints from members of voluntary organizations on rules/enforcement?
Quote from: indeelaw90 on November 07, 2012, 02:45:43 PM
Interested to know who made the biggest donations to his foundation....
Think there are a few IU boosters on that list?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Do the Supremes hear complaints from members of voluntary organizations on rules/enforcement?
Yes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/488/179
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/85
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 02:42:11 PM
Stupid rule? Agreed.
Shortsighted decision? Agreed.
Selective enforcement? Sure.
Kids unfairly caught in the cross hairs? Absolutely.
None of that changes the fact that ADAMS VIOLATED NCAA RULES. Stealing bread to feed your starving family is still stealing. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?
So is speeding when you go 56 in a 55 zone....and it would be lame to enforce it...which is why no police force does it.
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2012, 02:42:11 PM
Stupid rule? Agreed.
Shortsighted decision? Agreed.
Selective enforcement? Sure.
Kids unfairly caught in the cross hairs? Absolutely.
None of that changes the fact that ADAMS VIOLATED NCAA RULES. Stealing bread to feed your starving family is still stealing. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 07, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
So is speeding when you go 56 in a 55 zone....and it would be lame to enforce it...which is why no police force does it.
As a wise man once said: "Life isn't fair...deal with it."
Quote from: LittleMurs on November 07, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
As a wise man once said: "Life isn't fair...deal with it."
Nice catch, Mur.
No, actually it has the opposite meaning.
The NCAA legislates to even the playing field...even if it makes the players pay the price for something completely ridiculous. Yet they cannot even the playing field but still overlegislate.
This is a case where they over legislated. The players are getting screwed because of a minor action from 20 years ago. So Murs would have a point if I had the opposite POV.
The point is you pass out advice like "Life isn't fair...deal with it" and then bitch that life isn't fair.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 07, 2012, 08:49:33 PM
The players are getting screwed because of a minor action from 20 years ago.
You, of everyone should understand there is no such thing as a "minor" booster.
The players are getting punished because they took a boatload of benefits from a guy who they may not have known was an IU booster, and then they decided to attend IU (likely largely because of his recommendation).
So, feel bad for kids as long as my assumption that they didn't know he was a booster is correct (which it may not be).
However, if he was a MU booster and they went to MU they'd likely have the same penalty. Notice, the kids from his program that went to schools other than IU are not punished.
Bottom line, when boosters get involved with recruits, the recruits get screwed. Don't get involved with recruits!
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 07, 2012, 09:08:02 PM
You, of everyone should understand there is no such thing as a "minor" booster.
The players are getting punished because they took a boatload of benefits from a guy who they may not have known was an IU booster, and then they decided to attend IU (likely largely because of his recommendation).
So, feel bad for kids as long as my assumption that they didn't know he was a booster is correct (which it may not be).
However, if he was a MU booster and they went to MU they'd likely have the same penalty. Notice, the kids from his program that went to schools other than IU are not punished.
Bottom line, when boosters get involved with recruits, the recruits get screwed. Don't get involved with recruits!
Amen, brother.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 07, 2012, 09:02:46 PM
The point is you pass out advice like "Life isn't fair...deal with it" and then bitch that life isn't fair.
Oh...because you misunderstand the point of what I am saying, in your mind I can no longer complain about anything.
Got it.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 07, 2012, 09:08:02 PM
You, of everyone should understand there is no such thing as a "minor" booster.
The players are getting punished because they took a boatload of benefits from a guy who they may not have known was an IU booster, and then they decided to attend IU (likely largely because of his recommendation).
So, feel bad for kids as long as my assumption that they didn't know he was a booster is correct (which it may not be).
However, if he was a MU booster and they went to MU they'd likely have the same penalty. Notice, the kids from his program that went to schools other than IU are not punished.
Bottom line, when boosters get involved with recruits, the recruits get screwed. Don't get involved with recruits!
<sigh>
I understand all of that. The point is the application of the rule is this instance is stupid and heavy-handed. OK???
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 08, 2012, 05:00:45 AM
<sigh>
I understand all of that. The point is the application of the rule is this instance is stupid and heavy-handed. OK???
Don't disagree with you. I also found it very stupid when one of our players was suspended last year for a game because one of his friends/ fellow students took him to a brewers game with his dad's tickets.
However, The NCAA makes it very clear what a booster is. So does MU. Yes, they cast a very wide net. I suppose, if the NCAA gave any wiggle room on this, every slimey SEC booster would exploit it as much as humanly possible.
My neighbor's kid plays d1 ball. The team was in town, and the parents had the team over for dinner after the game. Nothing special, grilled up some food. Each of the athletes gave the parents money for the meal so that the dinner wasn't a free gift. Sigh.
Maybe it's just my libertarianism. I would rather deal with a society with less rules, and deal with people taking advantage of that, than one with a bunch of rules that dictate every circumstance. Bolas just tweeted a great new IU bumper sticker that says "My unborn son will regret this sticker 20 years from now."
But I'm done now.