Bear Down Wildcats

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Catintheheat wrote:

NYCat wrote:

A1RZONA wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... is-summer/

ORLANDO, Fla. -- At least six Division I men's basketball programs will receive Notices of Allegations for Level I violations from the NCAA by the summer, stemming from the federal government's recently completed investigation of the sport, a top NCAA official told CBS Sports.

Stan Wilcox, NCAA vice president for regulatory affairs, said two high-profile programs would receive notices of allegations by early July.

The remaining four would be rolled out later in the summer in what was described as a wave of NCAA investigations meant to clean up major-college basketball.

"There's even another group of cases that we're still working on," Wilcox said. "The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

I know it's stated it's eligibility related but hard to imagine how Arizona isn't one of the two major programs that will receive a notice. As stated in the article, Arizona, Louisville and Kansas are the only programs that are under investigation.

The two high profile progams seems to be Arizona & Louisville or Kansas. The remaining four are Auburn, Oklahoma State, USC, and Louisville or Kansas. The others would be NC State, Creighton, SCar etc

Ayton could be an eligibility issue for the NCAA because they're using the NCAA trial revelations. It's a retrospective eligibility issue, but still an eligibility issue if the NCAA says so.

Why would Ayton be an eligibility issue if he didn't receive any money and was cleared by the NCAA for eligibility?

Agree, Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI. The FBI found no wrong doing with Miller or Ayton. Would the NCAA really go back and say now based on someone who is a known bullshitter saying bullshit and rule Ayton ineligible when the FBI couldnt find it?

I mean, if Ayton has eligibility issues, I'll be ready to storm NCAA offices if Zion doesn't also have eligibility issues.

YoDeFoe wrote:Schools / players with eligibility issues:

USC / DeAnthony Melton
Auburn / Austin Wiley
Auburn / Daniel Purifoy
Kansas / Billy Preston
Kansas / Silvio De Sousa
Louisville / Brian Bowen
Alabama / Colin Sexton

Who am I missing?

Longhorned wrote:Those quotes from Stan Wilcox are insane. If the NCAA were anything like a responsible institution, Wilcox would be fired.

Because he said that stuff, I'd expect anything when it comes to allegations. You're only as rational as the statements you make.

But at the same time, I'd expect multiple lawsuits against the NCAA from the universities involved. There's a 90-day period for a response after the allegation is made. So by early October, we'll know how the universities are going to deal with the NCAA.

PHXCATS wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Schools / players with eligibility issues:

USC / DeAnthony Melton
Auburn / Austin Wiley
Auburn / Daniel Purifoy
Kansas / Billy Preston
Kansas / Silvio De Sousa
Louisville / Brian Bowen
Alabama / Colin Sexton

Who am I missing?

I dont believe it was part of this investigation but Fultz/Washington and Kuzma/Utah

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

The precedent of using actual hearsay as a guideline of punishment is beyond dangerous. If you're a school you better not piss off any former assistant coaches or runners.

Also this is just the first step guys, sanctions ain't coming for a good while. This year is safe.

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

YoDeFoe wrote:When counting schools, let's not forget NC State.

Attorney says adidas executive admits $40,000 payment to deliver Dennis Smith Jr. to NC State

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

Irish27 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Irish27 wrote:

This has to be a happy day for him. I'd hate to be his wife tonight.

zonagrad wrote:

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

The NCAA is posturing as though they're taking a tough stand. In the court of law, this garbage doesn't hold water. Who knows what Book told the NCAA. Who knows what Arizona & Miller told the NCAA. But if the NCAA is saying they're gonna punish us based solely on the bullshit published reports and nothing more -- I imagine Arizona is gonna fight back.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

The precedent of using actual hearsay as a guideline of punishment is beyond dangerous. If you're a school you better not piss off any former assistant coaches or runners.

Also this is just the first step guys, sanctions ain't coming for a good while. This year is safe.

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Irish27 wrote:

This has to be a happy day for him. I'd hate to be his wife tonight.

Well if she stays out past 8:30 drinking wine with her girlfriends, he will probly already be after glowing with his Twitter account smoking ciggys in bed.

She might want to sleep in the guest room but I think she can avoid the brunt of the enthusiasm.

dmjcat wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:This is quote is especially bonkers, if he's referring to Sean Miller:

Stan Wilcox wrote:Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations.

What was being said in the trial that reflects Sean Miller's violation of NCAA rules? The tap where Book says Miller was paying players, which isn't borne out by anything other than Book trying to position himself to get more cash? If that's going to be constituted as Miller violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA would be saying that Miller was paying players.

The precedent of using actual hearsay as a guideline of punishment is beyond dangerous. If you're a school you better not piss off any former assistant coaches or runners.

Also this is just the first step guys, sanctions ain't coming for a good while. This year is safe.

I tend to agree. Unfortunately its patently obvious from the statement that the NCAA considers everything that came out during the trial to be evidence, including wiretaps.

This is definitely NOT good for AZ.

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

goslingswagg wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

I would think we would litigate if the NCAA tried to use the conversation between Book and Dawkins about Miller paying players as proof that a violation existed, right? Didn't Wilcox basically imply that they would be using this type of evidence? I would think we'd be ready to fight that tooth and nail.

Regardless, we've continued to hear from you and Scheer/Gershon that the UofA thinks the punishment will be lighter than the media does, so hopefully that still holds true. As long as there is no post-season ban, I will be content (and I would think UofA would be as well).

ChooChooCat wrote:

goslingswagg wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

I would think we would litigate if the NCAA tried to use the conversation between Book and Dawkins about Miller paying players as proof that a violation existed, right? Didn't Wilcox basically imply that they would be using this type of evidence? I would think we'd be ready to fight that tooth and nail.

Regardless, we've continued to hear from you and Scheer/Gershon that the UofA thinks the punishment will be lighter than the media does, so hopefully that still holds true. As long as there is no post-season ban, I will be content (and I would think UofA would be as well).

Fwiw my post was my opinion and certainly not what Arizona believes. Just knowing from what I know in regards to the NCAA's structure and that literally every school member of the NCAA is a volunteer member technically, that as long as the NCAA follows its bylaws in their investigation I'm not quite sure what case Arizona has. I'm not a lawyer though, so hopefully Arizona and it's law team proves me wrong. It's absolutely fucking bonkers to use hearsay as evidence to punish any one in any setting though. The precedent set is absolutely catastrophic.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Hell, Wilcox's statement yesterday is a great starting point. Saying "I wouldn't want to be the first program through the new enforcement process" seems an awful lot like an admission their new process may be wildly inconsistent with the last. That lack of consistency in punitive consequence is the strongest legal basis we have if there is a harsh punishment contemplated.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

goslingswagg wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I'm not sure litigation is as much of an option as you guys seem to think it is.

I would think we would litigate if the NCAA tried to use the conversation between Book and Dawkins about Miller paying players as proof that a violation existed, right? Didn't Wilcox basically imply that they would be using this type of evidence? I would think we'd be ready to fight that tooth and nail.

Regardless, we've continued to hear from you and Scheer/Gershon that the UofA thinks the punishment will be lighter than the media does, so hopefully that still holds true. As long as there is no post-season ban, I will be content (and I would think UofA would be as well).

Fwiw my post was my opinion and certainly not what Arizona believes. Just knowing from what I know in regards to the NCAA's structure and that literally every school member of the NCAA is a volunteer member technically, that as long as the NCAA follows its bylaws in their investigation I'm not quite sure what case Arizona has. I'm not a lawyer though, so hopefully Arizona and it's law team proves me wrong. It's absolutely fucking bonkers to use hearsay as evidence to punish any one in any setting though. The precedent set is absolutely catastrophic.

That's a reason I hammered proportional treatment so hard when I discussed legal strategy. If they use an evidentiary standard that brings in Book's claims, we should be demanding proportionality with other similar situated instituutions.

Hearsay saying Clemson football pays players. Where's the punishment for Clemson football. Hearsay about payment plans for Zion's family. Where's vacating Duke's wins last year? Just Kansas? NCSU punishment for Dennis Smith Jr. payments?

The NCAA's achilles heel is always their inconsistent application of standards and punishments. Penn State is the best example of this. They backed the NCAA down very effectively in court.

Hell, Wilcox's statement yesterday is a great starting point. Saying "I wouldn't want to be the first program through the new enforcement process" seems an awful lot like an admission their new process may be wildly inconsistent with the last. That lack of consistency in punitive consequence is the strongest legal basis we have if there is a harsh punishment contemplated.

Medill sophomore wins 2018 Howell essay contest
Nikki Baim’s essay discusses implications of journalist’s missteps in reporting on University of Arizona basketball “pay-for-play” scandal
June 7, 2018 | By Irene Chang (BSJ21)

Nikki Baim (BSJ20) has won the 2018 Walter S. and Syrena M. Howell essay competition. The annual contest awards $4,000 for a Medill student’s analysis of “truth gone awry.”

Baim’s essay, “The Sports Department of Corrections: How false reports by ESPN criminalized the University of Arizona Basketball Program,” discusses the missteps of ESPN columnist Mark Schlabach in his reporting on the University of Arizona “pay-for-play” scandal. The essay further highlights the consequences of journalists’ mistakes on public figures and institutions.

ESPN’s article indicated University of Arizona head basketball coach Sean Miller discussed paying top players to play on the team. Despite many errors within the story, including gaps in the timeline and unreliable sourcing, the report delivered a blow to the top-tier basketball program’s reputation.

“[ESPN] must be transparent about Schlabach’s reporting habits and commit to accurate journalism if they want [to] put faith back in the hands of fans, athletes and coaches,” Baim wrote in her essay.

The Howell essay contest judges commended Baim on her unique example of the devastation of unverified reporting, as well as how she acknowledged that ESPN’s errors were partially due to the pressure of competition against other outlets.

“Baim’s choice of topic—media coverage of the Arizona basketball scandal—was original and allowed her to delve into the impact of poor reporting on the subjects covered. But she also raised interesting questions about the impact of shrinking newsrooms and digital competition on journalism’s norms and anonymous sources,” said Medill Associate Professor Patti Wolter, one of the contest judges.

A Tucson, Arizona native, Baim said that the scandal resonated with her personally. University of Arizona is the alma mater of her father and sister, and she grew up watching the school’s basketball and football games. When the ESPN story broke and rattled the basketball season and recruitment, Baim said that she knew “it was trouble.”

“The Arizona basketball team -- a power program [for] the past 35 years -- has become a part of the town’s identity,” she said. “I hoped to talk about my disappointment in the changes ESPN has made over the years and the community impact of misinformation in Tucson from a journalism perspective in my essay.”

In addition to Wolter, Medill faculty members Steve Garnett and Mei-Ling Hopgood judged this year’s competition.

“I would like to thank the judges for honoring me with this award,” Baim said. “Attending Medill has opened up a world of opportunities for me and I am grateful for every way that my professors, advisors and peers have helped me succeed at Northwestern.”

Nate Oats’ hope of seeing new transfer point guard Jahvon Quinerly on the court for Alabama next season appears to be fading after the NCAA announced stricter guidelines for granting residency waivers Wednesday.

The NCAA Division I Council approved four alterations to previously-existing guidelines used in determining whether a transferring student-athlete might be eligible for a waiver of the required year-of-residency for all undergraduate transfers based on extenuating circumstances. The added guidelines would appear to be stricter and require complete participation from the transfer’s previous program in order to even make a full appeal, which isn’t always so simple given the sometimes complicated reasons student-athletes opt to transfer in the first place.

In the case of Quinerly, whose waiver appeal to the NCAA had yet to be submitted by Alabama as of last week, the new restrictions might throw a wrench into what some at Alabama believed was an open-and-shut request based on personal hardships Quinerly dealt with at Villanova stemming from his erroneous connection to the recent FBI probe into college basketball.

“I’m guessing it’ll make it more difficult, (but) I don’t really know,” Oats said Thursday on the SEC men’s basketball summer teleconference from his home in Buffalo. “It seems like (the NCAA rules) fluctuate every couple of years, all of a sudden they say they’re going to get more strict and they get more strict for a year or two, and then they start granting a lot more waivers. So, I don’t know if we just caught the bad end of the pendulum swing and all that. But I do think he’s got a really good case.”

If the NCAA doesn’t grant his waiver request, Quinerly must sit out the 2019-20 season due to undergraduate transfer rules but will have three years of college eligibility remaining.

“Our compliance office thinks he’s got a great case just with being accused and put under the spotlight of all that FBI stuff when their family had nothing to do with it,” Oats said. “It’s unfortunate that somebody else lied about him and put them in a precarious situation that kind of affected his freshman year in a real negative light, and he needed a fresh start. … I think Jahvon’s in a great place, hopefully we get him to play, (but) if not, he’s working hard and we’re going to get him a lot better if he’s not able to play this year. Either way we’ll be alright.”

Under the new restrictions, requests that appeal to a student-athlete’s mental or physical health — which appears to be the root of Quinerly’s waiver request — and how it was adversely affected at the previous school, guidelines require the new program to provide objective documentation detailing the student-athlete’s behavior and how the new situation is more conducive to his/her safety and well-being, as well as a statement from the previous school’s athletic director indicating the reason the student-athlete gave for wanting to transfer in the first place. Oats indicated Villanova and head coach Jay Wright have been supportive of Quinerly’s move to Alabama and the two coaches have been in contact throughout the entire appeal process.

azgreg wrote:

Postmaster wrote:What became of the O’Neal-Phelps grade thing?

Seems like if that were proven, that would be more egregious than Book because it was academic fraud and related to getting a kid on the floor.


Also, will anyone go after Pasternak? He knew of the bribes even if he didn’t partake.
To me, that seems like a problem.

But maybe Pasternak told Sean.

Someone mentioned before what a pain in the ass it is to fire a university employee so I believe they just decided to let his contract expire.

prh wrote:Just more fuel for the dump Heeke bandwagon