PonyFans.com

Coaches are supposed to be deemed liable for the actions.

mrydel wrote:Coaches are supposed to be deemed liable for the actions.

It depends on how much money your program brings into the NCAA before you can determine how liable the coach is for the team actions

I think we should all breathe a sigh of relief that Klemm wasn't busted when he was here in FB, that we got rid of Ulrich when we did, that we lost out/backed out on Diamond Stone, and that we convinced Mudiay to go to China.

If we didn't find out about Frazier, act on it when we did, and make the appropriate changes to the program, I am about 98% sure we would have ended up on those lists.

mrydel wrote:Coaches are supposed to be deemed liable for the actions.

Timing is everything in all of this. If a kid or his family takes money from an agent before they make a college decision and there is no evidence to link a school and/or coach, I don't see what the NCAA can do to any school or coach

The NCAA has perfected the art of plausible deniability. All the school has to do is say they had no idea any of this was going on and, based on NCAA history, nothing will be done. The problem for the NCAA is convincing the FBI not to release evidence where it makes it impossible for say Duke, Texas and others to convincingly say they had no idea. Of course, North Carolina said just the opposite in that they knowingly committed academic fraud but since it was fraudd for every student the NCAA said no foul. Strange that UNC can have atheletes andother students commit academic fraud and its ok even though other schools that competed against UNC didn't get the same advantage. Even if there was youtube evidence of schools knowing andit went viral, the NCAA would find a way to say, no evidence of rules violations. Move along.

Very strange if UNC 's academic accreditation hasn't been called into review for all the FAKE classes

Has it

PlanoStang wrote:Very strange if UNC 's academic accreditation hasn't been called into review for all the FAKE classes :!:

Has it :?: :?:

It was. They were on probation with their accreditation agency, but I think they're back in "good standing"...

ponyte wrote:The NCAA has perfected the art of plausible deniability. All the school has to do is say they had no idea any of this was going on and, based on NCAA history, nothing will be done. The problem for the NCAA is convincing the FBI not to release evidence where it makes it impossible for say Duke, Texas and others to convincingly say they had no idea. Of course, North Carolina said just the opposite in that they knowingly committed academic fraud but since it was fraudd for every student the NCAA said no foul. Strange that UNC can have atheletes andother students commit academic fraud and its ok even though other schools that competed against UNC didn't get the same advantage. Even if there was youtube evidence of schools knowing andit went viral, the NCAA would find a way to say, no evidence of rules violations. Move along.

I don’t follow every detail of athlete eligibility, but isn’t it more of a strict-liability scheme? It certainly is after allegations are raised. And Wendell Carter played on Saturday, which means Duke is absolutely certain neither he nor his family did anything wrong.

The really weird situation is Arizona—the coach is suspended for discussing payments to the player, but the player continues to play? I guess the discussed payment was never made?

Dukie wrote:

ponyte wrote:The NCAA has perfected the art of plausible deniability. All the school has to do is say they had no idea any of this was going on and, based on NCAA history, nothing will be done. The problem for the NCAA is convincing the FBI not to release evidence where it makes it impossible for say Duke, Texas and others to convincingly say they had no idea. Of course, North Carolina said just the opposite in that they knowingly committed academic fraud but since it was fraudd for every student the NCAA said no foul. Strange that UNC can have atheletes andother students commit academic fraud and its ok even though other schools that competed against UNC didn't get the same advantage. Even if there was youtube evidence of schools knowing andit went viral, the NCAA would find a way to say, no evidence of rules violations. Move along.

I don’t follow every detail of athlete eligibility, but isn’t it more of a strict-liability scheme? It certainly is after allegations are raised. And Wendell Carter played on Saturday, which means Duke is absolutely certain neither he nor his family did anything wrong.

The really weird situation is Arizona—the coach is suspended for discussing payments to the player, but the player continues to play? I guess the discussed payment was never made?

Well, when the FBI releases a tape recording of a coach discussing payments, its really pushes the plausible deniablity factor. Keith Frazier contiuned to play for us even though we knew there were issues. I suspect it will take the FBI releaseing irrefutable evidence of Duke violations before anything is done. The game isn't to turn oneself in with major violations, the goal is to keep ones mouth shut to get away with major violations. Thee is one reason this situation is different. Its easy to hook-wink the NCAA. Not as easy to hood-wink the FBI.

Actually the school can't hide behind, "we didn't know". That's confessing lack of institutional control which has its own set of penalties. Heck even we tried that defense, unfortunately, the Board of Governors were making payroll as were other boosters. One of our offenses that got us the death penalty was lack of institutional control. That's what got us Ken Pye.

EastStang wrote:Actually the school can't hide behind, "we didn't know". That's confessing lack of institutional control which has its own set of penalties. Heck even we tried that defense, unfortunately, the Board of Governors were making payroll as were other boosters. One of our offenses that got us the death penalty was lack of institutional control. That's what got us Ken Pye.

One woders how long a Ken Pye type would be endured at Duke or Texas?

Probably not as long as Paul Hardin. I'm thinking he lasted only a year or 2.

ponyte wrote:

EastStang wrote:Actually the school can't hide behind, "we didn't know". That's confessing lack of institutional control which has its own set of penalties. Heck even we tried that defense, unfortunately, the Board of Governors were making payroll as were other boosters. One of our offenses that got us the death penalty was lack of institutional control. That's what got us Ken Pye.

One woders how long a Ken Pye type would be endured at Duke or Texas?

Apparently 21 years at Duke.

Greenwich Pony wrote:

ponyte wrote:

EastStang wrote:Actually the school can't hide behind, "we didn't know". That's confessing lack of institutional control which has its own set of penalties. Heck even we tried that defense, unfortunately, the Board of Governors were making payroll as were other boosters. One of our offenses that got us the death penalty was lack of institutional control. That's what got us Ken Pye.

One woders how long a Ken Pye type would be endured at Duke or Texas?

Apparently 21 years at Duke.

I think he was Chancellor of the Law School at Duke before coming to SMU and he was a thorn in the side of many Duke coaches from what I was told when I lived there in the late 80's. Duke would never have put him in a position where he could affect their basketball program, in particular, as that has been their cash cow for years and was Final Four strong when SMU hired Pye.

Let’s see if the FBI will affect Duke.