Rumored Violations

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfk324

Well-known member
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
2,270
IrishLax said:
It's a poorly written article, and the statement is being misinterpreted. The implied premise is that because there was an ongoing investigation and Memphis chose to ignore it and play Rose anyways, that since the result came back bad for them that it's a strict liability case. They rolled the dice, they lost, they lose the "we did everything in our power" excuse.

The grounds for Memphis' appeal... as quoted above... pretty clearly show what I'm talking about. If "we did everything right and timely" wasn't a cure all... then you couldn't use it as a grounds for appeal. What Dee is saying is why that defense doesn't hold water in this case.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what strict liability entails, though: it doesn't matter if they did everything right. He was ineligible, the end. As a result, all wins are vacated from the start of the season in October 2007, even though by all accounts Memphis wasn't aware until January 2008.
 
gkIrish

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
sfk324 said:
It's funny....the two of us are both licensed attorneys and the non-attorney is trying to tell us what strict liability means.

EDIT:: As for the rule, it's actually the NCAA's Committee on Infractions interpretation that is at issue. The rule cited by the committee was bylaw 31.2.2.3, but that rule says "may." The committee has been less than consistent in its application, to put it mildly, and most believed they went into new territory with the strict liability application of the Rose case.
Click to expand...

Well this licensed attorney agrees with Lax. There is clearly an inference that it is "strict liability" because Memphis played him knowing there was an investigation.
 
NDdomer2

NDdomer2

Local Sports vBookie
Messages
17,050
Reaction score
3,875
i want to see proof of license from all before any of this goes any further.
 
gkIrish

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
Also since we played Jerian Grant even though we 100% knew he was going to be suspended two days later does this mean we have to vacate all 3 of our wins last year?
 
Emcee77

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
sfk324 said:
It's funny....the two of us are both licensed attorneys and the non-attorney is trying to tell us what strict liability means.

EDIT:: As for the rule, it's actually the NCAA's Committee on Infractions interpretation that is at issue. The rule cited by the committee was bylaw 31.2.2.3, but that rule says "may." The committee has been less than consistent in its application, to put it mildly, and most believed they went into new territory with the strict liability application of the Rose case.
Click to expand...

Ahhh well-played. I was looking in Article 19. Reps to you.

Anyway, that brings some clarity to the situation. The rule definitely says "may," the NCAA "may require" that "the record of the team's performance may be deleted" if a player is found to have been ineligible. It is not really a strict liability situation in the sense that if an ineligible player plays, the wins must be vacated; it's a situation where the player's eligibility has nothing to do with the institution's knowledge (in that sense it is "strict liability") but the PUNISHMENT is within the NCAA's discretion.

So, imo, based on that rule, Lax is right that ND is going too far by offering to voluntarily vacate wins if they find that any of these players was ineligible. That is just unfair to the other players who played by the rules. Let the NCAA vacate wins if it deems it appropriate. The rules do not require that punishment (although it is within the NCAA's power to impose it).
 
Last edited:
gkIrish

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
Not sure if this is the original airing but there's an OTL on ESPN right now on our situation.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
gkIrish said:
Well this licensed attorney agrees with Lax. There is clearly an inference that it is "strict liability" because Memphis played him knowing there was an investigation.
Click to expand...

Emcee77 said:
Ahhh well-played. I was looking in Article 19. Reps to you.

Anyway, that brings some clarity to the situation. The rule definitely says "may," the NCAA "may require" that "the record of the team's performance may be deleted" if a player is found to have been ineligible. It is not really a strict liability situation in the sense that if an ineligible player plays, the wins must be vacated; it's a situation where the player's eligibility has nothing to do with the institution's knowledge (in that sense it is "strict liability") but the PUNISHMENT is within the NCAA's discretion.

So, imo, based on that rule, Lax is right that ND is going too far by offering to voluntarily vacate wins if they find that any of these players was ineligible. That is just unfair to the other players who played by the rules. Let the NCAA vacate wins if it deems it appropriate. The rules do not require that punishment (although it is within the NCAA's power to impose it).
Click to expand...

Thank you guys. Apparently, because I am not a licensed attorney, my knowledge and opinions are completely invalid. Even though I know more about NCAA rules than probably 95% of this board, and the NCAA is not a court of law, I'm not allowed to make correct statements.

NCAA rules are intentionally written to give the infraction committee latitude. It's done so such that there are minimal loopholes where someone can say "nuh! not governed by the specific letter of the rulebook!" and allows them to police wackadoodle scenarios like Penn State.

One of the most basic standard operating procedures has to do with self-policing. You're expected to be diligent and report any transgressions as soon as you become aware of them. As long as you do... you, as an institution, are generally not responsible for shit that goes wrong.

With Derrick Rose, the NCAA did not believe Memphis acted in this fashion for rather obvious reasons, which have already been explained... and Memphis rolled the dice and played him anyways... so let's not rehash this.

A great example of ineligible players NOT causing schools to vacate is with the 11 SEC players that were recently found to have taken benefits. Stone cold hard evidence of that they were ineligible. But the schools didn't know and were deemed to have not been negligent in their handling of anything sooooooo free pass even though they were playing ineligible players.

This is the general umbrella that ND falls under right now, unless there was some coverup or negligence that we don't know about. That's why vacating doesn't make sense. And this is why you CANNOT FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE VACATING WINS FOR ACADEMIC INELIGIBILITY IN THE HISTORY OF THE NCAA that does not involve a lack of institutional control, negligence, coverup, "should have known," etc. as part of the case.

I'm not even close to wrong on this, and anyone who says otherwise just has no clue what they're talking about.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Classic Irish said:
Anyone here familiar with The Shamrock Report and whether it's credible?
Click to expand...

Why? Link? Just that tweet?

I'd just caution everyone to wait for things to play out. There are a lot of people who think the sky is falling, and there are many others that think this is not going to be a huge deal at all. Either way I think we're looking at this taking awhile to play out completely.
 
Last edited:
Classic Irish

Classic Irish

Well-known member
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
322
IrishLax said:
Why? Link? Just that tweet?

I'd just caution everyone to wait for things to play out. There are a lot of people who think the sky is falling, and there are many others that think this is not going to be a huge deal at all. Either way I think we're looking at this taking awhile to play out completely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are a couple of tweets---one referencing a source who is an academic supervisor. Could be BS. Just was curious if they have any credibility. But I agree with you that this will take some time.
 
NDdomer2

NDdomer2

Local Sports vBookie
Messages
17,050
Reaction score
3,875
Phil thinks he knows something too

Phillip Daniels @PhillipDaniels
Again thanks for all the support #ND fans. When you have a setback, Don't step back. God is preparing you for an ultimate comeback! #Faith
 
NDhoosier

NDhoosier

Well-known member
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
346
Just in case someone missed it.

*The Shamrock Report ‏@TheShamRap 3h
@jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost So, John Kennedy, you realize 2 players are already getting cleared and a 3rd is being discussed today?

*BJ Konkle™ ‏@daBeej_06 3h
@TheShamRap @jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost No way?! Sources???

* The Shamrock Report ‏@TheShamRap 3h
@daBeej_06 @jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost the source is a supervisor in the academic office. Cant release names due to the investigation incomplete
 
Whiskeyjack

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
NDhoosier said:
*The Shamrock Report ‏@TheShamRap 3h
@jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost So, John Kennedy, you realize 2 players are already getting cleared and a 3rd is being discussed today?
Click to expand...

I want to believe, but if "2 players [have] already been cleared," then why weren't they at practice today? If we're interpreting this in a realistic but still optimistic way, I'd suggest that two players may have been interviewed already, and based on the evidence to date, things are looking good for them. Perhaps a 3rd was interviewed today, thereby advancing the resolution of his status.

Hopefully the investigators will be able to clear some of these guys before Rice, but I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to make anything public until the whole thing is complete.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
NDhoosier said:
Just in case someone missed it.

*The Shamrock Report ‏@TheShamRap 3h
@jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost So, John Kennedy, you realize 2 players are already getting cleared and a 3rd is being discussed today?

*BJ Konkle™ ‏@daBeej_06 3h
@TheShamRap @jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost No way?! Sources???

* The Shamrock Report ‏@TheShamRap 3h
@daBeej_06 @jkznd4 @Rocknes_Ghost the source is a supervisor in the academic office. Cant release names due to the investigation incomplete
Click to expand...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nx5GwULPU90" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Whiskeyjack said:
I want to believe, but if "2 players [have] already been cleared," then why weren't they at practice today? If we're interpreting this in a realistic but still optimistic way, I'd suggest that two players may have been interviewed already, and based on the evidence to date, things are looking good for them. Perhaps a 3rd was interviewed today, thereby advancing the resolution of his status.

Hopefully the investigators will be able to clear some of these guys before Rice, but I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to make anything public until the whole thing is complete.
Click to expand...

Whiskey, a chara,

Help me with a problem. I thought practice today was a golf outing? They would have had to scratch anyone ahead of time to work out that many tee times, wouldn't they? What does a "practice" have anything to do with golf outings, anyway? WTF?

Your most sincere and problematic poster,

Bogs
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,103
Reaction score
12,938
IrishLax said:
Thank you guys. Apparently, because I am not a licensed attorney, my knowledge and opinions are completely invalid. Even though I know more about NCAA rules than probably 95% of this board, and the NCAA is not a court of law, I'm not allowed to make correct statements.
Click to expand...

Time to get BruinSteve back up in here!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top