Got smoked by a weak Georgia Tech team in Raleigh. So much for this talk of being 5-0 in the ACC when they come to the Dean Dome in two weeks.

I don't want to hear no more talk about The Honorable Roy Williams being a great recruiter, bad gameday coach. That honor belongs to Mark Gottfired.

Georgia Tech had a great shooting night. Having said that - congratz to the YJ.

Now if Gottfried can only find a way to pay players , make embarrassing asinine comments and keep functional illiterates academically eligible , he'll have also bested Williams in three more areas of Roy's expertise.

How many of those players in red last night were Gott's recruits?

Roy pays players?






Valvano just let them gamble

Need a link?

yes.



your link needs to show evidence that roy, as head coach of unc, currently pays his players to perform. gifts of value after player tenure does not count. gifts of material after player tenure does not count.




let me know. thanks

Wayne Ellington says hello.




NCAA VIOLATIONS DON'T COUNT!!!!

You ask me a question then tell me how to answer it. Perfect. Look , we all know Roy ok'ed payments to players while at KU. It was AGAINST the rules and he DAMN sure KNEW it. "Mr. Former Head of the Rules and Ethics Committee" an' all. More importantly , the NCAA KNEW about it and punished KU due to Roy's arrogance....among other things. Just because that phoney jack-azz didn't reach into his pocket and hand anyone a handful of cash doesn't make 'im any less guilty. Stop it already. His "I'm above following the gosh darn rules because I'm freakin' Roy Williams" criminality most assuredly "counts." You're welcome.

Corey Maggette says Hi.

He also says "I didn't take money from anyone associated with Duke and the money I accepted was received PRIOR to Duke ever recruiting me." He also said that , "The NCAA determined that there was no way Duke could've known about the payments therefore the university wasn't sanctioned severely." Finally , I believe he also said that , " The NCAA reserves the right to mete out ( or not! ) punishment as they see fit and given Duke's immaculate record , the governing body decided against hammering the school." Oh yeah. That Corey's quite the chatterbox.

NCSU didn't have NCAA violations, because athletes selling shoes and tickets don't count.

Think it's about time for somebody to trot out the ncaa findings on ol roy when he was at Kansas.

EDIT: NM. Just read Pookies sig. LOL.

829305 says "I'm still clueless"

Maggette got paid then played at dook, so he was an Ineligible player. Players at Kansas got small gifts after their eligibility ended.

yes they did. and ol' huckster directed said payments. and the NCAA found out. and ol'huckster was found to have committed violations by the NCAA . so what was your point again?

FOR THREE YEARS STRAIGHT NO LESS!!!!!!!! Dayum you holes are dumb as shit.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12096928


Memphis played an ineligible student-athlete.

It got caught.

So now that 2008 Final Four will be eliminated from the record books, and any Tiger fan claiming it shouldn't be, well, I can't help those people. Again, Memphis played an ineligible player, and the NCAA was very clear in announcing the ruling that there is a price to pay when an ineligible player participates. It doesn't matter whether the school playing the ineligible player knew he was ineligible or even played a role in his ineligibility, just like it doesn't matter if the player wasn't ruled ineligible until after his college career was complete.

"Strict liability" is what the NCAA called it. Play 'em at your own risk.

 
Corey Maggette admitted to receiving payments from Myron Piggie. (Getty Images)   Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the "strict liability" point of view because it seems wild that the NCAA could clear a player and then later penalize a school for playing said player. But whatever. That's what the NCAA claims it can do, and that's what it did to Memphis.
But what I would like to know is why "strict liability" hasn't been enforced across the board?

That is, if Memphis can be penalized for playing Derrick Rose, even though the NCAA initially cleared Rose and to date has never accused Memphis of playing a role in what caused Rose to be ineligible, then why wasn't Duke penalized for playing Corey Maggette under slightly different but mostly similar circumstances?

That's the question some Memphis fans are asking. This is where I see their point.

For those unfamiliar, here's the deal: A summer basketball coach named Myron Piggie made cash payments to Maggette when the elite recruit was still in high school, and that money came from a revenue pool that included donations from at least two sports agents.

Connect the dots, and it's clear Maggette benefited from money supplied by agents, meaning his amateur status was compromised. Still, none of this was public knowledge at the time. So the NCAA cleared Maggette to play at Duke, and he helped the Blue Devils reach the 1999 Final Four before entering the 1999 NBA Draft.

•  Tigers stripped | Parrish: Calipari forever blemished | Rose

Less than a year later, a federal grand jury handed down an 11-count indictment of Piggie that details the payments to Maggette. Piggie cut a deal and admitted to making the payments; Maggette admitted to receiving the payments. So none of this falls under the he said/she said umbrella, and the NCAA's Jane Jankowski was quoted in April 2000 as saying that the NCAA "will have to determine if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. And, if so, what monies would have to be returned for use of an ineligible player."

Fast-forward nine years, and no money has been returned. The banner still flies.

So I asked Paul Dee about strict liability Thursday. He's the chairman of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions.

I wanted to know whether a school that played a player who was later found to have taken cash would also be at risk of the strict liability clause and thus forced to vacate anything and everything made possible by said player.

At first, Dee said he wasn't aware of any case that fit my description. But then I told him the story of Duke and Maggette, at which point he said, "I don't know that a case was brought against Duke for that, whether he admitted it afterward or not, or whether somebody brought the case or not. And I'm not familiar with that particular case or that particular issue."

To answer Dee's questions:

• Yes, a case was brought against Duke.

• Yes, Maggette admitted taking the money.

Still, it took nearly four years -- and a push from Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel, who wrote a splendid column about the situation at the 2004 Final Four -- for the NCAA to address the Maggette situation. In what can best be described as a strange press conference, NCAA president Myles Brand called NCAA Vice President of Enforcement David Price to the podium in San Antonio.

Here was his explanation: "Our executive regulations specify that if an individual plays while ineligible in the NCAA championships, we can either vacate the team's participation in the championship and/or assess a fine for the money that they received. The standard for that is whether either the institution knew or should have known that Maggette was ineligible or if Maggette himself knew that -- or should have known that he was ineligible. After a lengthy investigation, we came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Maggette knew or should have known, and we believe firmly that the institution did not know and should not have known."

How the NCAA could determine that Maggette didn't know he was taking money from Piggie is tough to understand, particularly when Maggette had long ago testified under oath that he, you know, took money from Piggie. Hilarious, right? But the key point is how the NCAA basically said Duke wasn't penalized because it did not know and should not have known that Maggette was ineligible.

To that point, it's important to remember that the NCAA has made no allegation in the Memphis case that the school knew or should have known that Rose was ineligible, but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter. The NCAA is now throwing around the term "strict liability" and explaining how the only thing that matters is that the Tigers used an ineligible player, and that's why the school's Final Four banner is coming down just 16 months after earning it.

Meanwhile, Duke's 1999 Final Four banner still flies high.

And when people claim the NCAA uses selective enforcement, this is what they're talking about.

damn boy, we sure did miss your rulebook interpretations during football season. where were you?

Dook is as dirty as Memphis during the Calipari era.

Hell, the last 2 football seasons.

did coach k direct payments to players for three years running like ol'huckster?




you are correct. going on 3.




btw dummy, read the sig. he was paying currently enrolled "student" athletes.

i don't think i have received a link yet showing that unc's current head coach of basketball is currently paying basketball players that are currently eligible. people trade money and material gifts with athletes to and fro post-basketball career. it doesn't enhance or provide incentive to play during the school year. also, was this money coming out of university pocket? when did this incentive occur? pre- during or post?



in corey's case, it was pre- which is more egregious, since there is incentive to lead one's decision during their amateur career

that bar keeps moving doesnt it?



the fact is that ol huckster was an active participant in the payment of moneys and gifts to "student" athletes for at least three years that we know of. he's your coach now.

k has never paid anyone. v never paid anyone.

you have a coach who has been found violating NCAA rules. live with it, embrace it.

Hang a banner!

Make that two coaches. Williams and BMFD

my bad.

I didn't change the original request. No moving target. Links plz

ncaa.org




plus a new football coach and AD who are also on the NCAA shitlist. what an institution you guys are running over there.

"The carolina way"

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: pertsix.

· View this post
· Un-ignore pertsix

Promising gifts to players at ANY juncture of their collegiate career is fraught with peril. Slippery slope. Very. Heck , who's to say what's "small" anyway , right? A corrupt coach ( such as Roy ) might consider a new car to be "small." Who gets to make the determination? See where this is going? Best to just not give ANY gifts ANY time and avoid any semblance of impropriety. Not good ol' Roy though. He KNOWS the rules and broke 'em anyway. "I'm Roy Williams and ain't no dad-gum pencil-pusher in the compliance department gonna tell me how to run my program. I make my own dad-gum rules!" This is what's so infuriating and slimey about Roy. He just doesn't give a fuk. His arrogance leads 'im to believe that he's above it all and whatever he does is legal because HE does it.

Just for future reference 3 #'s , ya might wanna refrain from linking articles with glowing remarks about Dan Wetzel. Jus' sayin...'

LINK

Heck , on second thought ya might wanna avoid the subject of Myron Piggie too. You're welcome. Also , didn't Rose CHEAT to become academically eligible at Memphis. If so , that is NOTHING like Maggette's situation at Duke. Plus , Duke is immaculate. It played a role. unx will find out how critical this is when they're sittin' their corrupt azzes on fball probation PRAYING that no more of their skullduggery comes to light. But I digress.

Read what ya want much? Duke wasn't even involved with Corey at that point. Whatever Corey was incentivised to do it had bupkiss to do with attending Duke. THAT'S the point. Are we done here?

DJ, Roy would never say this because Roy doesn't talk to compliance departments.

Corey was an ineligible player when he wore a dook uniform and they went to the Final Four. This same offense resulted in a vacated Final Four appearance at Memphis. THAT'S the point. STRICT LIABILITY.

Yeah we're done.

But it's NOT strict liability. You , as a hole fan , should know that better than anyone. Hasn't the NCAA been an organization of arbitrary and capricious decision-makers? THAT'S sure as fuk what you guys have been whining about. Need about a gazillion posts illustrating this fact? Plus , you only addressed a convenient portion of my post. I'll say it again. The NCAA reserves the right yada yada yada. Duke's immaculate record played a role. Also , the Duke and Memphis situations are only comparable within the narrowest of confines despite what the writer of your link says. NOW , we're done.