Bribery Scandal - FBI Probe - Book Richardson Involved

Irish27 · Post by **Irish27** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:11 pm

The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:12 pm

dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.

What violation occurred?

Would Miller get in trouble or would U of A if Book got a DUI or cheated on his taxes?

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:13 pm

Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.

What makes you think the NCAA does not like Miller?

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:23 pm

dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.

I guess. Then Quinnerly is done with college basketball.

KillerKlown · Post by **KillerKlown** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:39 pm

Longhorned wrote:
dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.
I guess. Then Quinnerly is done with college basketball.

When does the investigation into Pasternack start?

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:49 pm

dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.

That article is an exercise in sensationalism.

All of it is technically true. Yes, the prosecution has said from the get go that Book told Dawkins he wanted 15k for Quinerly, who is eligible.

Yes, a plea is an admission of wrongfulness. It is not an admission to something beyond the plea.

Brian Bowen's dad did testify Dawkins said that. Is there any extrinsic evidence of that? Not anything that has come out so far.

Miller and Arizona could be sanctioned. Yes, but that is always true. The NCAA is self governing and there's little process of appeals.

When the article puts that all together, it does so to create the impression they're linked, but they're not. Right now, the thing that is set in stone is Book accepting bribe money to steer players. The rest has either been repudiated (15k for Quinerly) or is secondhand word from a convicted felon.

Dawkins and company already went to trial, got convicted and tried to drag others into it. Went ok for us, less so for Kansas. If they had better stuff, why save it for trial 2?

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:10 pm

dmjcat wrote:We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.

Can any major program not named Duke say with 100% confidence that the NCAA won’t suddenly decide to stick a microscope up their ass?

I’d say that even without Book being a total fucking greedy moron we were never ever “out of the woods” when it comes to the capricious assholes at the NCAA.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:22 pm

Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.

Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:49 pm

I am still failing to see the NCAA violations Arizona committed you know with that little thing called proof. Book committed a criminal act for sure, but so did our track coach and he went to jail and NCAA did nothing to our track program.

I am really glad Book didn’t rat though, was so nervous about that

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:53 pm

Newportcat wrote:I am still failing to see the NCAA violations Arizona committed you know with that little thing called proof. Book committed a criminal act for sure, but so did our track coach and he went to jail and NCAA did nothing to our track program.

I am really glad Book didn’t rat though, was so nervous about that

Yeah but what if Book ate a sandwich and thought about buying everyone else a sandwich, too?

Captain Obvious · Post by **Captain Obvious** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:23 pm

dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.

Couldn't agree more. Anyone who even entertains the thought no punishment will be handed down is out of their mind. A head coach has to establish and maintain institutional control. The 'I didn't know' excuse won't appease the NCAA. No matter how you slice it this does not end well.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:29 pm

NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Unethical Conduct

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?bylawId=3426" target="_blank

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner"); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 4/26/06)

Book plead gulity to (e) today folks. Thats all the NCAA needs to hang our butts from a flagpole.

AZCatGirl · Post by **AZCatGirl** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:34 pm

I really think you're overreacting to this. We're hardly going to get our butts hung from a flagpole. There isn't that much there.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:40 pm

dmjcat wrote:NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Unethical Conduct

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?bylawId=3426" target="_blank

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner"); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 4/26/06)

Book plead gulity to (e) today folks. Thats all the NCAA needs to hang our butts from a flagpole.

Why does it seem like you’re rooting hard for this flagpole butt hanging you reference?

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:45 pm

Chicat wrote:
dmjcat wrote:NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Unethical Conduct

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?bylawId=3426" target="_blank

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner"); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 4/26/06)

Book plead gulity to (e) today folks. Thats all the NCAA needs to hang our butts from a flagpole.
Why does it seem like you’re rooting hard for this flagpole butt hanging you reference?

As a UA graduate and 30 year season ticket holder I can assure you that I am NOT rooting for NCAA sanctions.

I'm merely pointing out facts. One of those facts is that there are a whole lot of folks on this board in serious DENIAL.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:52 pm

Captain Obvious wrote:
dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.
Couldn't agree more. Anyone who even entertains the thought no punishment will be handed down is out of their mind. A head coach has to establish and maintain institutional control. The 'I didn't know' excuse won't appease the NCAA. No matter how you slice it this does not end well.

So back it up then. How much do you want to bet on this?

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:00 pm

dmjcat wrote:NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Unethical Conduct

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?bylawId=3426" target="_blank

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner"); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 4/26/06)

Book plead gulity to (e) today folks. Thats all the NCAA needs to hang our butts from a flagpole.

You can pled your case to go to a certain agent while in the player is still in school (not a violation) or create an arraignment to meet after the player is done playing (not a violation) and still be guilty of bribery. We dont know from this how Book was trying to get people to this specific agency

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:02 pm

Oh god, and now here we go with the “how much do you wanna bet??” dick length contest.

The Internet is great .... and awful.

dmjcat wrote:there are a whole lot of folks on this board in serious DENIAL.

“HEY MOM!!! THERE’S PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET BEING FANS! SO I’M GONNA BE LATE FOR MEATLOAF NIGHT WHILE I TELL THEM THEY’RE IN DENIAL!”

“THAT’S FINE HONEY! JUST CLEAN UP THE BASEMENT WHEN YOU’RE DONE!...”

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:06 pm

dmjcat wrote:NCAA Bylaw 10.1 Unethical Conduct

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?bylawId=3426" target="_blank

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner"); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 4/26/06)

Book plead gulity to (e) today folks. Thats all the NCAA needs to hang our butts from a flagpole.

That’s the bylaws section on unethical conduct. It isn’t a matter of “institutional control”, but of individual conduct. Book would be held to bylaws 19.5.2.2.l (3): termination of his contract. That happened. Since nobody else was involved, nobody else faces discipline. With no players involved, there are no wins to vacate. Sure, the NCAA could get weird and throw every subsection of 19.5.2.2 at Arizona, but it’s self-flagellation to expect that.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:30 am

Longhorned

How dare you bring up things like facts into this conversation. It’s so much more fun to envision mckale literaly burning to the ground while I scream “TOLD YOU SO”

Again, book acted unethical, we immediately suspended him, we looked into the facts, then fired him. The record now shows he is going to jail for those exact reasons. Nothing more. Sure there are rumors out there but they are just rumors.

Has the NCAA given our track program sanctions after what Craig Carter did which was about 1000000000 times more fucked up.

BBQ wildcat · Post by **BBQ wildcat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:47 am

Jeesh folks! There is a good reason why I have dmjcat and Machina on ignore. Then y'all go a quote them and I have to see their stupid shit.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:59 am

ChooChooCat wrote:
Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.
Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

More of a conference thing...

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:09 pm

Captain Obvious wrote:
dmjcat wrote:https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.
Couldn't agree more. Anyone who even entertains the thought no punishment will be handed down is out of their mind. A head coach has to establish and maintain institutional control. The 'I didn't know' excuse won't appease the NCAA. No matter how you slice it this does not end well.

Book PLANNED on using...but did not.

No violation there unless there is some proof he told Quinnerly "hold up...getting you $15K".

Brian Bowen's dad also said Oregon is like the Godfather of NCAA cheating, offering the world + another planet, none of which was corroberated. Bowen had no proof. No texts. No emails. No recordings. Just that "the one guy who is on trial for crimes told me, and I totally understood every word of what he said and am not forgetting details or remembering wrong, that another guy from Arizona was going to get us money. But I never actually talked to Arizona. Or saw any money."

Where is the surefire violations here? And how is seeing this and saying "where's a shred of proof of any violation?" DENIAL? What are we denying? Or is the idea that it sounds like it could be bad so it must be bad even though there is no actual violation proven or, in Book's case, committed?

There's emotional debate and then there is logic. The law is generally logical. The NCAA isn't married to the rules of law, but there certainly is a path from the legal system structure to their bylaws and investigations. They just got jammed for overstepping bounds in sanctioning Miami and USC. There are about 30 schools that are implicated with actual written documentation of payment, and a few, like Kansas, who had coaches actually correspond with the defendents in a way that makes it clear they understood what was going on during a violation...

But there is no logical path to the two "charges" named above and even a reasonable chance at violations. Not unless there is more.

There always could be more. But from what we know right now, neither the "I was thinking about giving someone money" nor the "I heard from the defendant that he was told, not in front of me or in writing to me, that someone from Arizona wanted to give me money, but I never got it, nor did they ever discuss it with me" is a violation. Period. It isn't opinion...

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:38 pm

EVCat wrote: Book PLANNED on using...but did not.

No violation there unless there is some proof he told Quinnerly "hold up...getting you $15K".

Book planned on pocketing the money from day 1. I mean his whole story about Quinerly's family wanting to know what Book/Arizona can do for them AFTER already publicly committing to Arizona is such a crock of shit. The guy wanted to fatten his pockets and Dawkins was more than eager to comply as it's more in debt Book would be to him. The NCAA even knows this, hence why Quinerly is playing today.

EVCat wrote:Brian Bowen's dad also said Oregon is like the Godfather of NCAA cheating, offering the world + another planet, none of which was corroberated. Bowen had no proof. No texts. No emails. No recordings. Just that "the one guy who is on trial for crimes told me, and I totally understood every word of what he said and am not forgetting details or remembering wrong, that another guy from Arizona was going to get us money. But I never actually talked to Arizona. Or saw any money."

Where is the surefire violations here? And how is seeing this and saying "where's a shred of proof of any violation?" DENIAL? What are we denying? Or is the idea that it sounds like it could be bad so it must be bad even though there is no actual violation proven or, in Book's case, committed?

Yup if Brian Bowen Sr's hearsay is good enough to get you violations than any fan of another team saying "ARIZONA CHEATS" is good enough for a violation as well. Hell Jim Basnight is rocking back and forth in his basement doing that right now.

EVCat wrote:There's emotional debate and then there is logic. The law is generally logical. The NCAA isn't married to the rules of law, but there certainly is a path from the legal system structure to their bylaws and investigations. They just got jammed for overstepping bounds in sanctioning Miami and USC. There are about 30 schools that are implicated with actual written documentation of payment, and a few, like Kansas, who had coaches actually correspond with the defendents in a way that makes it clear they understood what was going on during a violation...

But there is no logical path to the two "charges" named above and even a reasonable chance at violations. Not unless there is more.

There always could be more. But from what we know right now, neither the "I was thinking about giving someone money" nor the "I heard from the defendant that he was told, not in front of me or in writing to me, that someone from Arizona wanted to give me money, but I never got it, nor did they ever discuss it with me" is a violation. Period. It isn't opinion...

All excellent stuff here EV. Now I will give dmj credit for his Unethical Conduct charge. I talked with a buddy of mine who works in compliance at another school and that is literally the same exact rule he put out to me that they could arguably hit Arizona with, but it's not cut and dry, because it's supposed to be a rule about one coach not an entire program. Ultimately it depends on what the NCAA decides to do, but my buddy cited that rule as the primary possibility. Even if that's the case Arizona could be hit with only fines and zero postseason ban. Truthfully I don't think the NCAA wants any more negative light shined on this issue any more. The story itself is already dying outside of Schlabach desperately trying to keep it alive. College Basketball has already moved on from it quite frankly, so it will be interesting to see how much the NCAA pushes on this. I honestly don't expect much, but then again I'm also not wearing my tin foil hate like some other people are, so who knows.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:40 pm

EVCat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.
Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

More of a conference thing...

Even then both parties have moved on from that. Nobody is after Miller on a personal level.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:56 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:
EVCat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.
Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

More of a conference thing...
Even then both parties have moved on from that. Nobody is after Miller on a personal level.

Even people who make up bullshit about Miller blaming fans for a loss?

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:12 pm

Chicat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
EVCat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.
Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

More of a conference thing...
Even then both parties have moved on from that. Nobody is after Miller on a personal level.
Even people who make up bullshit about Miller blaming fans for a loss?

Well that's a whole different story

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:43 pm

Chicat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
EVCat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Irish27 wrote:The NCAA probably does not like Miller, so they easily could find him guilty of lack of institutional control. That could mean anything from loss of scholarships to being banned from postseason.
Yeah, the NCAA has nothing against our coach..

More of a conference thing...
Even then both parties have moved on from that. Nobody is after Miller on a personal level.
Even people who make up bullshit about Miller blaming fans for a loss?

Chicat, It wasn't bullshit

CatFanOneMil · Post by **CatFanOneMil** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:18 pm

Frankly I think the NCAA does nothing...nada, zilch...here's my reasoning...

Attention. They don't want it. Bad Press has given them a black eye...Miller and UA have already followed NCAA guidelines here...our history with them (Trier and the bumfuck shenanigans from last year) will only create more focus...a history of negative press with us and a lack of clear wrongdoing on the Universities part only make for VERY BAD METRICS FOR THEM...

Add Kansas and a USC and a host of other title IX litigation as well as the whole "players need to be represented and the NCAA is screwing them" and I say we get a fat nothingburger out of this.

Its a friggin committee made up of Prez's and AD's and a handful of desk jockeys...the less they do the better they look.
SOP for the NCAA will rule the day. Do nothing.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:17 pm

CatFanOneMil wrote:Frankly I think the NCAA does nothing...nada, zilch...here's my reasoning...

Attention. They don't want it. Bad Press has given them a black eye...Miller and UA have already followed NCAA guidelines here...our history with them (Trier and the bumfuck shenanigans from last year) will only create more focus...a history of negative press with us and a lack of clear wrongdoing on the Universities part only make for VERY BAD METRICS FOR THEM...

Add Kansas and a USC and a host of other title IX litigation as well as the whole "players need to be represented and the NCAA is screwing them" and I say we get a fat nothingburger out of this.

Its a friggin committee made up of Prez's and AD's and a handful of desk jockeys...the less they do the better they look.
SOP for the NCAA will rule the day. Do nothing.

But didn’t you hear? Miller paid Ayton!

Most people with a passing interest in college sports would tell you that very “fact”. They know it because they saw it on ESPN.

If the NCAA doesn’t do something about Miller paying Ayton, then it’s a meaningless organization that hates THEIR school or conference when they start up that investigation.

I think because of the perception that Miller & UA are dirty, the NCAA will investigate and hand down at least some punishment. Probation being the most likely result. And it fucking sucks that we will continue to get our school’s name dragged through the mud, but it’s the way it goes.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:05 am

From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/23/ ... l-scandal/" target="_blank

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:16 am

dmjcat wrote:From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/23/ ... l-scandal/" target="_blank

zomg if Jon Wilner says it...

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:18 pm

Click bait

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:26 pm

Newportcat wrote:Click bait

Is he begging people to subscribe to his newsletter as per usual?

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:56 pm

I wish I could screen shot my phone to show you all the pops up for his newsletter! Got two pops up and when you scroll down you have to get past a sign up first

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:27 pm

dmjcat wrote:From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/23/ ... l-scandal/" target="_blank

That article has plenty of sound and fury and signifies nothing.

Oh my, the trial and NCAA investigation could be an issue? Inconcievable!

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:39 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
dmjcat wrote:From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/23/ ... l-scandal/" target="_blank
That article has plenty of sound and fury and signifies nothing.

Oh my, the trial and NCAA investigation could be an issue? Inconcievable!

Yeah was not fake news but basically a recap of things we have already known since 2017.

I really am not concerned about the Dawkins trial. That guy is so full of shit. My concern more is the news organizations who will run with whatever he says but how can you believe any of it. The guy was supposed to give Bland a bribe of $13K but pocketed $9K himself. He squeezed the guy he was bribing

Even if the NCAA comes down hard on us, who fucking cares. We can not control it and it would be total bullshit anyways. Our program would be fine just like Penn State football was fine and USC football was fine and Miami football is fine, etc.

But the fact of Book is not talking and what he was found guilty of are both really good pieces of news for Arizona.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:44 pm

Saw the ABOR was meeting again after the Book guilty plea. Assume it just the checking in on things type of meeting?

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:26 pm

azcat49 wrote:Saw the ABOR was meeting again after the Book guilty plea. Assume it just the checking in on things type of meeting?

I would assume yes. That's one of the hilarious things in all this, there are members of the ABOR who are not sports fans or fans of the University of Arizona. If there was one shred of evidence against Miller, he would be fired. Yet, he is still our coach.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:33 pm

azcat49 wrote:Saw the ABOR was meeting again after the Book guilty plea. Assume it just the checking in on things type of meeting?

Yes. Just an update thing. Nothing to worry about at all

zonagrad · Post by **zonagrad** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:56 pm

The ABOR are a bunch of self-important fools. They need to call meetings to justify their existence. Whatever decisions that are made are done without their prior knowledge or approval. Then they're updated or notified (maybe ask a stupid question or two) and then nod in agreement with the UA decision-makers. And then schedule another meeting.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:01 pm

zonagrad wrote:The ABOR are a bunch of self-important fools. They need to call meetings to justify their existence. Whatever decisions that are made are done without their prior knowledge or approval. Then they're updated or notified (maybe ask a stupid question or two) and then nod in agreement with the UA decision-makers. And then schedule another meeting.

Exactly, so dumb we do not have our own individual board of trustees like most universities do.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:08 pm

I think Heeke should contact the NCAA first thing monday morning and inform them that we are self sanctioning this year.

No NCAA tourney for us!!

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:54 pm

On NCAA discipline. I don't know how to post a tweet, but will link a Stewart Mandel tweet about how Missouri got harsher sanctions than UNC because Missouri cooperated and UNC didn't.

https://mobile.twitter.com/slmandel/sta ... gr%5Etweet" target="_blank

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:32 pm

Its all about money. Missouri does not bring in the money that UNC Basketball does. Unless there is something really out there in the news big programs dont get hit too hard

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:02 pm

Well shit

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-investiga ... 15126.html" target="_blank

Fuck it, we are cursed.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:02 pm

I cant see this being any good if Miller has to testify.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:31 pm

Newportcat wrote:Well shit

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-investiga ... 15126.html" target="_blank

Fuck it, we are cursed.

We'll see. That lawyer tried to pull a lot of people in the first time around and got shut down by the judge.

The only concerning part is the new source, but even then, it's about what's on the wires.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:32 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Newportcat wrote:Well shit

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-investiga ... 15126.html" target="_blank

Fuck it, we are cursed.
We'll see. That lawyer tried to pull a lot of people in the first time around and got shut down by the judge.

The only concerning part is the new source, but even then, it's about what's on the wires.

I would hate this article a lot less if it was written by ESPN. Just not a good look with Pete from Yahoo writing it

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:54 pm

My two cents on the article:

Sources told Yahoo Sports that Arizona is one of the schools tied to the federal basketball scandal where a formal NCAA inquiry has begun.

No shit. Upside of this, it seems clear the FBI is done.

There’s a strong expectation that Miller will be subpoenaed to appear at the trial, potentially within the next month. He could be one of many coaches, as all the coaches who were captured on wiretap with Dawkins are at risk of a subpoena.

As I said above, the defense pulled the same moves in trial #1 and got shut down by the judge. The ability to subpoena does not mean the testimony is relevant.

Dawkins wrote at one point to a colleague: “Joe told me verbatim he will help us get all the Arizona players, so put his feet to the fire.”

This is directly the opposite strategy as the defense outlines above. The bribery is based on getting them the players.

Coaches testifying in federal court looms as a potential spectacle that would make administrative officials at any university nervous.

Again, no shit.

Considering all of the controversy and allegations that emerged throughout the trial regarding Arizona’s high-profile recruits and players, especially 2018 No. 1 pick DeAndre Ayton, it strains credulity to believe that none received extra benefits.

This overlooks none of the benefits were alleged to have been to go to Arizona.

“Sean Miller is really in a box,” said a person familiar with the details of the case. “I don’t see how he can testify and it would stay consistent with his past statements. And I don’t see how he can keep the University of Arizona without exposure.”

This is the part that seems new to me. I'm not sure why a denial would be countered by evidence...unless the wire exists. But if the wire is good FBI evidence, why wasn't it used in trial #1?

The most prominent name of a potential replacement would be Los Angeles Lakers coach Luke Walton, who has reportedly fallen out of favor of LeBron James and is dealing with reported friction in the Lakers locker room.

Now we're on to speculation about Walton.

Richardson worked for Miller for more than a decade and pleaded guilty to a federal bribery charge after being accused of accepting $20,000 in bribes to steer players to a financial manager.

From there, according to federal court testimony, another former Arizona assistant, Pasternack, offered $50,000 for Bowen to attend Arizona. Former Arizona players Ayton and Rawle Alkins also were linked to allegations of illicit payments in both the trial and its aftermath. The recruitment of former Arizona commitment Jahvon Quinerly also received federal scrutiny because of a $15,000 payment to Richardson, a portion of which was supposed to go to Quinerly. (He never played for Arizona and is eligible at Villanova.)

Ok. Bowen's dad said Pasternack offered, and there is no corroboration. Ayton...yeah, people gave money to his friends to convince him to go to Kansas. Alkins, a plan was established, never testimony it was put into place. Quinerly is eligible.

On the whole, this is a ton of repackaged speculation that adds nothing new other than a claim about one source.

Login • Register