Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/20/2012 8:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by psb336 on 10/20/2012 8:18:00 AM (view original):Wouldnt you have to prove that the school was in on it or knew about it?
The more germane issue is that the jeweler effectively provided Thomas with a $67,800 loan – the remaining balance on the purchase.
NCAA rules are clear that a student-athlete can't receive any "extra benefit" based on his celebrity as a player or against future professional earnings.
n this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?
If not, Duke could be in trouble.
That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that "extra benefit." If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)
The punishment stage is far down the line. In general, however, the NCAA is adamant that it doesn't want its student-athletes being paid – either in money or goods – by anyone. The NCAA's reasoning for this particular rule is fairly simple: If players could trade on future earnings or celebrity, they'd get deals on everything. A car dealer would gladly offer a future lottery pick the most expensive ride on his lot for $1 down with payments beginning on draft day
no... if a player is ineligible and the school and coach are cleared of all knowledge and wrong doing (see umass/calipari/whatshisface), the school is held ultimately responsible. NCAA effectively takes this stance because, well, they have no ability to hold anyone else responsible. i think the NCAA is a necessary evil, but i really do wish they would be more consistent on these matters. they effectively destroyed SMU in one of the only 2 high profile death penalties ever, i can see backing off from that, but these littler things, pulling final 4s etc, i don't see how you can pull the one at umass and memphis and NOT pull dukes. good for duke but the NCAA is supposed to treat every program equally.
actually i dont think it really ever made national news, or else it wasn't made a big deal, but UK did have to report a violation similar to the jewelry store thing not long ago. this pizza place was giving UK players free pizza and soda, so sandy bell (head of compliance dept) basically banished the owner from being part of UK sports in any way, and forbid all UK athletes from going there, on top of reporting it to the NCAA. im really not sure where you draw the line - i mean, it doesnt seem fair to strip UK of their title because one of their upperclassmen was one of the guys ate a free slice of pizza a couple years back, but by the letter of the law, i think the NCAA could do it. and therein lies the problem to me - its all so much left to the subjectivity of the NCAA. its tough to do, to nail these things down, by why else does the NCAA exist? i don't think they should make a big deal of it and strip Duke of a title, as much as i might personally enjoy it, but they've ruled out post seasons for simliar things in the past, which i also didn't agree with. they just need to grow some balls and take their stand BEFORE they have a subjective case to look at, and then be consistent in their upholding of their rules.
my biggest problem with the NCAA is, who the hell governs them? the schools i guess could just quit if the NCAA got bad enough, but that would take something really ridiculous, i think. i guess the fans can somewhat discredit them. i mean, in my mind, memphis still lost the championship game by the slimmest of margins. according to the NCAA, they didn't. but when the subject comes up, nobody ever says, yeah that was a great game when kansas had a huge come back to beat nobody. all the websites that count final fours still show memphis as having that one, at least what ive seen. so maybe that is really what matters. and i personally don't have a gripe where the NCAA handed down major penalties to my school (UK got the first death penalty ever in like 55, point shaving i believe, and then banned from the post season in 90 and 91 - amazing how quick they come back from this stuff, but still, those are some serious penalties). but as a basketball fan, im definitely not satisfied with the role they play in the sport - some regulation is needed, obviously (or you will have UCLA all over again), but we just don't have it right yet, IMO...