Bear Down Wildcats

ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:40 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:35 am I don't believe the NCAA kicks anyone off your team, but I think if you take a guy and then lose a scholarship you would then need 2 guys to leave for you to add 1 the following year. So maybe it limits your options for the following year?

In the end, if you can't get someone who you think will contribute then I don't see the benefit of just adding another guy anyway.

I'm not sure it's ever an issue. Aiken and Kier are for sure gone next year. Mathurin and Tubelis probably are gone. If Tubelis goes, you'd expect his brother to go as well.

So we could sign a 5 man class without changing our scholarship #. That doesn't even factor in transfers, and transferring is easier than it's ever been.

So, I'm somewhat of the mind you never really worry too much about having spots. That works itself out. Leaving a spot open because we didn't find someone we like...is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be better than someone who isn't a fit. But, it is also on the coach to find fits, and lord knows, there were enough people in the portal.

Aiken has two years of eligibility remaining.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:35 am I don't believe the NCAA kicks anyone off your team, but I think if you take a guy and then lose a scholarship you would then need 2 guys to leave for you to add 1 the following year. So maybe it limits your options for the following year?

In the end, if you can't get someone who you think will contribute then I don't see the benefit of just adding another guy anyway.

I'm not sure it's ever an issue. Aiken and Kier are for sure gone next year. Mathurin and Tubelis probably are gone. If Tubelis goes, you'd expect his brother to go as well.

So we could sign a 5 man class without changing our scholarship #. That doesn't even factor in transfers, and transferring is easier than it's ever been.

So, I'm somewhat of the mind you never really worry too much about having spots. That works itself out. Leaving a spot open because we didn't find someone we like...is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be better than someone who isn't a fit. But, it is also on the coach to find fits, and lord knows, there were enough people in the portal.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:35 am I don't believe the NCAA kicks anyone off your team, but I think if you take a guy and then lose a scholarship you would then need 2 guys to leave for you to add 1 the following year. So maybe it limits your options for the following year?

In the end, if you can't get someone who you think will contribute then I don't see the benefit of just adding another guy anyway.

I'm not sure it's ever an issue. Aiken and Kier are for sure gone next year. Mathurin and Tubelis probably are gone. If Tubelis goes, you'd expect his brother to go as well.

So we could sign a 5 man class without changing our scholarship #. That doesn't even factor in transfers, and transferring is easier than it's ever been.

So, I'm somewhat of the mind you never really worry too much about having spots. That works itself out. Leaving a spot open because we didn't find someone we like...is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be better than someone who isn't a fit. But, it is also on the coach to find fits, and lord knows, there were enough people in the portal.

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:01 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:35 am I don't believe the NCAA kicks anyone off your team, but I think if you take a guy and then lose a scholarship you would then need 2 guys to leave for you to add 1 the following year. So maybe it limits your options for the following year?

In the end, if you can't get someone who you think will contribute then I don't see the benefit of just adding another guy anyway.

I'm not sure it's ever an issue. Aiken and Kier are for sure gone next year. Mathurin and Tubelis probably are gone. If Tubelis goes, you'd expect his brother to go as well.

So we could sign a 5 man class without changing our scholarship #. That doesn't even factor in transfers, and transferring is easier than it's ever been.

So, I'm somewhat of the mind you never really worry too much about having spots. That works itself out. Leaving a spot open because we didn't find someone we like...is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be better than someone who isn't a fit. But, it is also on the coach to find fits, and lord knows, there were enough people in the portal.

I know it usually works itself out in the end, but I'm just saying that this could be the rational for not taking someone. It seems like our roster is pretty set next year in terms of playing time and I don't believe there are any immediate impact transfers out there at the moment that we are on. So that leaves us with taking a multi-year project type transfer or a mediocre HS recruit? I don't see how that is helpful, necessary or worth the time when they will ultimately transfer because they didn't play.

UAEebs86 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:53 pm

Postmaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:28 pm The rube on 1490 just espoused a theory that AZ will leave one scholly open in case the ncaa imposes a reduction this year.

Justin Spears?

Postmaster wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:51 am Also, wouldn’t you want to give a walk on a scholarship?

MountainCat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:58 am

Postmaster wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:51 am Also, wouldn’t you want to give a walk on a scholarship?

Do scholarships mean much anymore? Couldn't we sign the top player in the land and not offer a scholarship and let them get a sponsor to pay for their likeliness, thus they pay for their own tuition, room, and board? Just wondering...

dmjcat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 7:55 am https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ered-years

Chicat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:20 am So the so-called “independent” investigatory body is not going to actually investigate but just accept whatever the NCAA found?

Not sure how that’s good for us at all. Am I reading that wrong?

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:37 am

Chicat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:20 am So the so-called “independent” investigatory body is not going to actually investigate but just accept whatever the NCAA found?

Not sure how that’s good for us at all. Am I reading that wrong?

They're not going to conduct investigation beyond what the NCAA did. The good part is that means, no new info or allegations. It's whether they agree with the NCAA's findings or not, but they aren't going to be developing any evidence the NCAA didn't already have.

Our argument was always the NCAA went too far on some allegations. It does not seem like this curtails our ability to argue shortcomings in the NCAA's quantum of evidence or present information of our own. That's why I like it.

Basically, the max they could find is the NCAA's allegations, but we can argue for less. This eliminates any chance the IARP could find new violations or better evidence of NCAA alleged violations.

Chicat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:18 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:37 am

Chicat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:20 am So the so-called “independent” investigatory body is not going to actually investigate but just accept whatever the NCAA found?

Not sure how that’s good for us at all. Am I reading that wrong?

They're not going to conduct investigation beyond what the NCAA did. The good part is that means, no new info or allegations. It's whether they agree with the NCAA's findings or not, but they aren't going to be developing any evidence the NCAA didn't already have.

Our argument was always the NCAA went too far on some allegations. It does not seem like this curtails our ability to argue shortcomings in the NCAA's quantum of evidence or present information of our own. That's why I like it.

Basically, the max they could find is the NCAA's allegations, but we can argue for less. This eliminates any chance the IARP could find new violations or better evidence of NCAA alleged violations.

Good stuff Spiff.

I guess it was always too much to ask for the IARP to find evidence that the NCAA is a corrupt organization filled with assholes who don’t give a flying fuck about ruining programs and people’s lives over a few rumors and criminally irresponsible outside reporting.

TheCat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:28 am My fear is that our athletic department just allows some allegations to be accepted to prove the coaching change was necessary. Will Sean Miller be able to have his own lawyer argue the merits of any charge against him?

TheCat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:28 am My fear is that our athletic department just allows some allegations to be accepted to prove the coaching change was necessary. Will Sean Miller be able to have his own lawyer argue the merits of any charge against him?

YoDeFoe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:13 am

TheCat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:28 am My fear is that our athletic department just allows some allegations to be accepted to prove the coaching change was necessary. Will Sean Miller be able to have his own lawyer argue the merits of any charge against him?

The worst allegations are the academic allegations against Book and Phelps, which both seem meritless (given the FBI provided no evidence or allegations regarding the supposed bribery of a high school official by Book, and given the pushback by Phelps and his subsequent non-firing, respectively). But they could be substantiated by evidence we haven’t heard of or seen. Would surprise me, obviously, and like Spiff said: they can’t go digging up new evidence.

While those allegations aren’t directed at Miller, in a way those allegations make him look bad (his guys, lack of control) - so sure, maybe the school doesn’t care to defend any of the coaches here. But the IARP is going to make a decision based on the evidence supporting those allegations more so than our arguments against them.

And I guess lastly, the school isn’t going to want any of the allegations to be true - to keep its own record and media narrative clean(er), as well as to not hang a millstone on their newly hired head coach.

Beachcat97 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:58 pm Serious question: is it possible we'll be punished for things now permissible under NIL rules?

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:57 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:01 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 am

DrWildcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:35 am I don't believe the NCAA kicks anyone off your team, but I think if you take a guy and then lose a scholarship you would then need 2 guys to leave for you to add 1 the following year. So maybe it limits your options for the following year?

In the end, if you can't get someone who you think will contribute then I don't see the benefit of just adding another guy anyway.

I'm not sure it's ever an issue. Aiken and Kier are for sure gone next year. Mathurin and Tubelis probably are gone. If Tubelis goes, you'd expect his brother to go as well.

So we could sign a 5 man class without changing our scholarship #. That doesn't even factor in transfers, and transferring is easier than it's ever been.

So, I'm somewhat of the mind you never really worry too much about having spots. That works itself out. Leaving a spot open because we didn't find someone we like...is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be better than someone who isn't a fit. But, it is also on the coach to find fits, and lord knows, there were enough people in the portal.

I know it usually works itself out in the end, but I'm just saying that this could be the rational for not taking someone. It seems like our roster is pretty set next year in terms of playing time and I don't believe there are any immediate impact transfers out there at the moment that we are on. So that leaves us with taking a multi-year project type transfer or a mediocre HS recruit? I don't see how that is helpful, necessary or worth the time when they will ultimately transfer because they didn't play.

Yeah, I mean I get the rationale...just that you'd think in a historically unprecedented year for player in the portal, it's a little disappointing Lloyd wasn't in on someone who'd change that narrative.

On the multi-year project...that's why I continue to not understand Lloyd going in on Ballo immediately. Koloko is a multiyear true C who needs development. Snatching Ballo (at a point we still had Jordan Brown) was always odd to me. Ballo is a project with no positional flexibility. He seems like the type of player you speak of settling for.

And for clarity, I post that about Ballo a lot, but I'm not trying to hate. My main thing is how closely he duplicates Koloko in being a C with no positional flexibility needing seasoning. I have no issue with either Ballo or Koloko, and both are additions. I just don't really get having two developmental guys who can't play anything but C on the same roster.

mofo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:28 am I guess I was under the impression that even if the IARP dug up additional and/or more severe violations, they couldn't be added to the NOA at this point anyway, sorta like double jeopardy, so my first reaction was like Chi's. Not sure if I heard that somewhere or imagined that. Granted, even if this was the case they could use that info as reason not to back down on any current allegations in the NOA and use the most severe penalty. I was kinda hoping they'd dig up some fraud or at minimum find the NCAA was reaching in their NOA, but I agree at this point the sooner it's over the better and if that meant it drug on for 2 more years then that just hurts us.

Also, does anyone feel the IARP has any incentive to side with AZ rather than the NCAA even if some of the allegations are unsubstantiated? Who pays for the IARP and how "independent" are they really? This will be interesting to see how things shake out, but my sense is the IARP is going to allow the NCAA to waive a big middle finger to everyone and say "We told you so". I hope I'm wrong.

Side note - why do I get the feeling Miller will end up in the ACC or SEC at some point and ESPN is going to slobber all over him...

dmjcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 12:57 pm https://www.si.com/college/usc/basketba ... -sanctions

We can only hope (and maybe pray) that our sanctions are as minor. Unfortunately, Book shot his mouth off on tape about forging HS transcripts (Alkins)

dmjcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 12:57 pm https://www.si.com/college/usc/basketba ... -sanctions

We can only hope (and maybe pray) that our sanctions are as minor. Unfortunately, Book shot his mouth off on tape about forging HS transcripts (Alkins)

Postmaster wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:48 pm Was Enfield the coach at the time of violations?

Irish27 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:03 am I thought I would put this here. Looks like Dukie Vitale is retiring after this year.

Irish27 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:03 am I thought I would put this here. Looks like Dukie Vitale is retiring after this year.

azgreg wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:48 am

Irish27 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:03 am I thought I would put this here. Looks like Dukie Vitale is retiring after this year.

20 years too late.

10/1/21 - NCAA accuses Louisville, Mack of additional allegations

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The NCAA has amended its Notice of Allegations against Louisville, adding additional violations committed by the men’s basketball program that include impermissible activities and accusations coach Chris Mack did not promote an atmosphere for compliance.

Already under review by the Independent Resolution Panel (IRP) for violations related to a college basketball corruption case detailed in a May 2020 NOA, the school received the amendment on Thursday from the governing body’s Complex Case Unit.

The NCAA alleges Louisville:

— Allowed graduate assistants, managers and noncoaching staffers to conduct impermissible activities with current players;

— Produced, showed and personalized recruiting videos to prospects including their names and likenesses;

— Presumed Mack responsible for both allegations. The amendment adds that Mack did not rebut presumption of responsibility.

Louisville said in a statement that it will respond to the amendment after a thorough review.

The latest development for a school that has endured a series of recent scandals comes after Louisville suspended Mack six games on Aug. 27 for failing to follow procedures handling an extortion attempt by former assistant Dino Gaudio after his dismissal last spring. That same day the ex-assistant received probation and a $10,000 fine following his guilty plea this summer to a federal charge of attempted extortion.

During a March 17 meeting with team personnel, Gaudio said he would expose alleged violations by the team “in its production of recruiting videos for prospective student-athletes and in the use of its graduate assistants in practices,” a federal charging document stated.

Gaudio had been told his contract would not be renewed and he threatened to go public with the allegations “unless he was paid a significant sum of money,” the document said. Authorities said Gaudio demanded 17 months’ salary or a lump sum payment.

Though the school acknowledged Mack was the victim of an extortion attempt, athletic director Vince Tyra said the fourth-year coach “failed to follow university guidelines, policies and procedures in handling the matter.”

Mack accepted the suspension and said he “could have handled matters differently.”

dmjcat wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:31 pm It appears that the UA is going to get an updated timeline from the IARP next monday

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2021/oct/ ... -case-now/

IARP spokesperson Amy Hanna told the Journal-World on Thursday that updates to the timelines for all six cases currently being reviewed by the IARP now will be published on Oct. 11.

On Thursday, Hanna said the new, slightly later date was chosen “in response to requests from NCAA member institutions for additional time to review their respective case timelines and prepare anticipated responses to inquiries.”

dmjcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:36 am The updated IARP timeline is out..........and it isn't particularly informative. The last entry states that they have submitted an amended notice of allegations.

https://iarpcc.org/referred-cases/unive ... f-arizona/