Duke basketball player likes his jewelry!

#27
#27
VKAman said:
If you can't make anyone talk to you, you end up with the exact same outcome.
Click to expand...

You can make them talk. You say, "due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence, of an unpaid college player dropping a hundred Gs in jewelry, you lose 3 schollies unless you can prove where he got the money and it was legit."

That's the exact scenario that would've played out at almost every school not named Duke.
 
#28
#28
bamacheats said:
You can make them talk. You say, "due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence, of an unpaid college player dropping a hundred Gs in jewelry, you lose 3 schollies unless you can prove where he got the money and it was legit."

That's the exact scenario that would've played out at almost every school not named Duke.
Click to expand...

"Due to one player spending a lot of money, we're going to immediately and harshly punish his school even though there's absolutely zero evidence that they did a single thing wrong."

Yeah, that scenario plays out all the time. Keep bringing the knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
I keep finding myself caring less and less about college athletics as this stuff goes on. Amateurism for major sports throughout the DI level and even down to some DII and DIII is a sham. The NCAA needs to abandon it.
 
#30
#30
Amazing the amount of UK fans that want to weigh in on the subject. Maybe if you guys had put a guy on the ball you wouldn't be so concerned about Lance Thomas' jewelry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#31
#31
bamacheats said:
You can make them talk. You say, "due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence, of an unpaid college player dropping a hundred Gs in jewelry, you lose 3 schollies unless you can prove where he got the money and it was legit."

That's the exact scenario that would've played out at almost every school not named Duke.
Click to expand...

That is what happened at Memphis
 
#32
#32
VKAman said:
"Due to one player spending a lot of money, we're going to immediately and harshly punish his school even though there's absolutely zero evidence that they did a single thing wrong."

Yeah, that scenario plays out all the time. Keep bringing the knowledge.
Click to expand...

You're ignorant of NCAA sanctions.
 
#33
#33
dukes_of_maggard said:
That is what happened at Memphis
Click to expand...

Memphis was playing a player that was proven by the ETS to be ineligible. If you can prove that Lance Thomas was ineligible, that's one thing. But bamacheats' system of "We have no evidence, but you're guilty until you prove your innocence" is unprecedented and idiotic, especially right after the NCAA got shredded by Miami.
 
#34
#34
VKAman said:
Memphis was playing a player that was proven by the ETS to be ineligible. If you can prove that Lance Thomas was ineligible, that's one thing. But bamacheats' system of "We have no evidence, but you're guilty until you prove your innocence" is unprecedented and idiotic, especially right after the NCAA got shredded by Miami.
Click to expand...

Please educate us morons, what NCAA rules violations did PennSt break, thereby gaining a competitive athletic advantage, to deserve being hammered like they did by the NCAA? Please bring the knowledge.
 
#35
#35
bamacheats said:
Please educate us morons, what NCAA rules violations did PennSt break, thereby gaining a competitive athletic advantage, to deserve being hammered like they did by the NCAA? Please bring the knowledge.
Click to expand...

Had it been made public that a coach at Penn St. had raped boys in the shower the media s*** storm would have discouraged the recruits Penn St. had from committing.

Not saying its solid ground just what I could come up with
 
#36
#36
bamacheats said:
Please educate us morons, what NCAA rules violations did PennSt break, thereby gaining a competitive athletic advantage, to deserve being hammered like they did by the NCAA? Please bring the knowledge.
Click to expand...

Lack of institutional control to the nth degree.

This stuff really isn't that complicated.
 
#37
#37
RDU VOL#14 said:
Amazing the amount of UK fans that want to weigh in on the subject. Maybe if you guys had put a guy on the ball you wouldn't be so concerned about Lance Thomas' jewelry.
Click to expand...

laff, if you think this has anything to do with Christian Laettner, then get over yourself.
 
#38
#38
dukes_of_maggard said:
Had it been made public that a coach at Penn St. had raped boys in the shower the media s*** storm would have discouraged the recruits Penn St. had from committing.

Not saying its solid ground just what I could come up with
Click to expand...

PennST committed ZERO NCAA violations. NCAA makes up rules as they go along and see fit.

If Stokes drops a hundred grand on a diamond, he'd be ineligible, games played in forfeited, and Cuonzo with a show cause.

Aman is just wearing his dookey shades. Clouding common sense.
 
#39
#39
bamacheats said:
PennST committed ZERO NCAA violations. NCAA makes up rules as they go along and see fit.

If Stokes drops a hundred grand on a diamond, he'd be ineligible, games played in forfeited, and Cuonzo with a show cause.

Aman is just wearing his dookey shades. Clouding common sense.
Click to expand...

If Stokes drops a hundred grand on a diamond, he'd be questioned first, because he's a current NCAA athlete. Try to keep up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
RDU VOL#14 said:
Amazing the amount of UK fans that want to weigh in on the subject. Maybe if you guys had put a guy on the ball you wouldn't be so concerned about Lance Thomas' jewelry.
Click to expand...

It's tough to decide if the Laettner play was more poorly defended than the Bluegrass Miracle. They're both way up there.

I actually met Laettner three nights ago.

I really thought the 1998 UK win would have led to more people getting over the '92 game. UK took one in '98 that was all Duke's.

After briefly meeting Laettner, I was talking to someone about my age who said he's always been a UK fan. Without looking it up, he thought it was 1994. So much hatred for Duke, and he didn't even remember the year.
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
bamacheats said:
Wrong. LOIC has to be in regard to an athletic competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

Do you think Penn State would have $200 million to spend on athletic facilities if it came out in 1994 that one of their coaches was molesting little boys? What kind of impact do you think that would have on recruiting?
 
#46
#46
Regarding Penn State, I will base my opinion on the presumption that the reported conclusions of the Freeh Report are completely true. I have not read it, but I'm going with it.

The decision to cover up for Sandusky was obviously because they thought that was the best decision for the football program. Yes, they were wrong to think that. And, we don't know if they gained a competitive advantage in between making that decision and getting caught. But, the intention was obviously for the betterment of the program. If they were trying to avoid what they thought would be a competitive disadvantage, then that's the same thing as trying to gain an advantage, IMO.

I have no problem with the NCAA's conclusion of LOIC.
 
#47
#47
VKAman said:
Do you think Penn State would have $200 million to spend on athletic facilities if it came out in 1994 that one of their coaches was molesting little boys? What kind of impact do you think that would have on recruiting?
Click to expand...

Still waiting on those violations. You bring the knowledge. Kinda surprised its taking this long.
 
#48
#48
VKAman said:
Do you think Penn State would have $200 million to spend on athletic facilities if it came out in 1994 that one of their coaches was molesting little boys? What kind of impact do you think that would have on recruiting?
Click to expand...

Even if you're wrong, and they would have still had the $200 million, which is possible, since the public would have praised Paterno for reporting this, I think it's enough that PSU's people decided the football program was better off if they covered up these acts. I think the purpose of the coverup is plenty; I don't think it's necessary to determine whether or not an actual advantage was gained.
 
#50
#50
ukvols said:
Regarding Penn State, I will base my opinion on the presumption that the reported conclusions of the Freeh Report are completely true. I have not read it, but I'm going with it.

The decision to cover up for Sandusky was obviously because they thought that was the best decision for the football program. Yes, they were wrong to think that. And, we don't know if they gained a competitive advantage in between making that decision and getting caught. But, the intention was obviously for the betterment of the program. If they were trying to avoid what they thought would be a competitive disadvantage, then that's the same thing as trying to gain an advantage, IMO.

I have no problem with the NCAA's conclusion of LOIC.
Click to expand...

Unethical? Absolutely! NCAA rule breaker? Nope.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top