Wiseman ineligible for Memphis
-
@dylans In Silvio’s case, they seem to have held him accountable for his guardian shopping him around and accepting money to go to 2 different schools. Even if it was technically just the $2,500 for extra courses.
-
@mayjay Yeah, it’s no good. But to me it would seemingly be worse if your coach is the one to hand out the cash. And then to play the player a couple more games before sitting him is really disrespectful. I’ll save future indignation until the punishment is handed down.
-
@dylans “I’ll save future indignation until the punishment is handed down.”
Don’t take off venting your spleen for too long. You need to go through preliminary indignation practice before the proceedings begin so that you are in full-bore shape when it counts.
-
Not playing for Memphis today.
-
Woodrow said:
@jayballer73 came out late this morning that Memphis ruled him ineligible and is holding him out until there is ruling from the NCAA
It doesn’t matter, the damage is done. Pretty stupid of them to play a guy who was ruled ineligible - they will pay dearly for it.
-
Coach needs to be punished and not the player.
-
Guess Penny is realizing about now that he’s not Coach K.
-
So he is officially suspended for 12 games having already sat 1, he has 11 to go. He also is ordered to pay $11,000 to charities. Very interesting to say the least, NIKE pulls strings with the NCAA again.
-
No one is surprised this was taken care of quickly.
Free SILVIO
-
The NCAA is realizing that their stranglehold of control on basketball talent is starting to slip away, and if they don’t update their rules fairly quickly, they will be rendered irrelevant, and ultimately, broke.
Remember, while conferences get money from football, the NCAA does not. They are almost entirely dependent on men’s basketball for revenue (makes up between 85% and 90% of total revenue). Put simply, if the NCAA tournament is devalued in any way, the NCAA loses a large chunk of their overall revenue because the men’s tournament is worth so much to them.
Beware of the basketball academies coming after 2022. That could be the final nail.
-
So does he come up w/the
?
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
So does he come up w/the
?Nike
my question exactly. How’s a kid who can’t work supposed to come up with $11,500 in a months time?!?
-
@dylans Santa
-
He apparently has to have it all paid back by his last game. So, parsing the detail, if he didn’t pay the whole thing, the only game he would get excluded from is the NC game because otherwise, how would they know what is his last game? Maybe I read that wrong. It has to be spread over the season, but there is no guideline on how much is paid at a particular time. He could pay $10 here, $20 there, etc.
“According to the NCAA’s repayment guidelines, ‘Payment may be spread throughout the duration of a student-athlete’s eligibility, but must be completed prior to the student-athlete’s last regular season date of competition or contest’.”
Also, it’s kind of funny how the “F” the NCAA stance has somehow resulted in this. Where was the dramatic court involvement to tell the NCAA their business?
-
What amazes me is the talking heads don’t see how Penny was a booster. Lol. Dude had already given them $1million for a building project. Not to mention he’s now their head coach.
The way this went down Bill should just pay to relocate all the top high school talent to Lawrence. Then he could have a Calipari/Coach K type recruiting class for the second semester.
-
… and, of course, he happened to attend college there. Sometimes folks want something to be true because the dislike or disagree with something. That infects all logical discussions on NCAA related matters. The NCAA is the enemy, their rules are stupid, and thus (as with our NCAA issues), it’s stupid or wrong to say Penny (or Gassnola in our case) is a booster. Reading the rule, well, that leads to a different conclusion.
-
Comparing this to the Silvio situation makes my head hurt. Such an obvious double standard.
-
@ajvan The facts are definitely different. Here’s a way to look at it. I like the terms passive and active.
Wiseman’s case was a passive rules violation. Something that involved improper benefits. Same as, for example, Selby or Jackson. Where our guys were treated the same way.
DeSousa was an active rules violation. We pay you as part of recruiting to cause you to play basketball at KU. That always gets a bigger penalty.
Not saying that the explanation is something we like to hear, but that’s a way to distinguish. And clearly the NCAA treats those circumstances differently.
-
@HighEliteMajor I find the distinction pretty blurry, maybe because I’m not taking the time to parse the definitions involved (“booster,” etc). What irritates me more is how the Wiseman judgment happened in a matter of days while Silvio had to wait months.
-
ajvan said:
@HighEliteMajor I find the distinction pretty blurry, maybe because I’m not taking the time to parse the definitions involved (“booster,” etc). What irritates me more is how the Wiseman judgment happened in a matter of days while Silvio had to wait months.
It’s blurry because the NCAA doesn’t differentiate in its own bylaws or penalty schedule. There is no distinction. Period. The NCAA just makes it up as they go. So Wiseman has until April to pay back $11k while not permitted to make any money and maintain eligibility. I don’t know what his mom does for a living but I doubt she’s got that kind of cash just laying around.
-
I moved from KS to WY for a whopping $200. They must have a lot of stuff to make a move cost $11,000.
I get SDS was paid to play but how is paying Wiseman to move not a recruiting tool, quid pro quo?
-
@FarmerJayhawk Again, I don’t think our NCAA venom is entirely well placed. The suspension for Wiseman was relatively predictable. See Bilas’ comments before the suspension was released. We’ve seen guys get suspensions based on the improper benefits, and that it’s based on the amount received. The NCAA always requires payback. And if you review the terms, it’s very flexible, almost permitting him to skate on some of it.
@ajvan The reason, I think, is because of the facts with Wiseman were well developed and known. When there is more info to be added, investigated, etc., that takes more time. Silvio situation was less than clear with all the denials and b.s. out there. Same with Preston. Wiseman, there were no real denials of what took place if I understood it right. The issue was just what would occur because of it. But I’m not defending the time delays.
However, the ridiculous delays we saw with the NCAA in some of our cases – Diallo sticks out to me – were really a joke.
-
FarmerJayhawk said:
ajvan said:
@HighEliteMajor I find the distinction pretty blurry, maybe because I’m not taking the time to parse the definitions involved (“booster,” etc). What irritates me more is how the Wiseman judgment happened in a matter of days while Silvio had to wait months.
It’s blurry because the NCAA doesn’t differentiate in its own bylaws or penalty schedule. There is no distinction. Period. The NCAA just makes it up as they go. So Wiseman has until April to pay back $11k while not permitted to make any money and maintain eligibility. I don’t know what his mom does for a living but I doubt she’s got that kind of cash just laying around.
Thank you, was thinking the exact same thing - that would have to be one hellacious part-time job for Wiseman the broke college athlete to have that kind of cash laying around, now wouldn’t it? How much do you want to bet that the NCAA will be all in favor of - having no qualms at all - Mr. Wiseman even borrowing the money, so long as it goes into their coffers. I smell a bigtime stinky double-standard fart.
-
@rockchalkwyo Moving can also include rental security deposits on the new place and payments of outstanding balances to the old place. Moving a household with furniture doesn’t usually happen for less than a few grand!
-
@HighEliteMajor As I recall, one of the aggravating factors in the coach allegation is the claim that Bill did not turn over his phone for quite a while after their adidas investigation began. The NCAA probably had to chew their cud on that for an additional 6 months.
-
@Marco The NCAA is aware that players cannot go out and earn these payback amounts. I believe the rules are that the school can loan him the money but it has to be paid back by the end of the year in which his incoming class graduates, even if he doesn’t stay in school. But I think it also requires the athlete to leave school in good standing or the school faces retroactive sanctions. I don’t know what. I remember posting the rule on this awhile ago, and I dunno if I have the details correct.
-
@Marco So help me, how is this a “double-standard”? And so you know, the money isn’t going to the NCAA. It goes to a charity of Wiseman’s choice by the way. The NCAA doesn’t need his $11,000.
@mayjay Not defending the NCAA time frames here fully, but if you’re going to posture that deciding the Wiseman issue vs. the KU/Adidas stuff was even near the same level of complexity, then I’m not sure really what to say there – if that’s what the “cud” comment means. Of course, we really didn’t fully cooperate. We weren’t fully “transparent.” We know that. There was a federal trial. There was waiting for that to conclude. On other items, I can’t quite figure it out. This one, I’m more understanding.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Marco So help me, how is this a “double-standard”? And so you know, the money isn’t going to the NCAA. It goes to a charity of Wiseman’s choice by the way. The NCAA doesn’t need his $11,000.
@mayjay Not defending the NCAA time frames here fully, but if you’re going to posture that deciding the Wiseman issue vs. the KU/Adidas stuff was even near the same level of complexity, then I’m not sure really what to say there – if that’s what the “cud” comment means. Of course, we really didn’t fully cooperate. We weren’t fully “transparent.” We know that. There was a federal trial. There was waiting for that to conclude. On other items, I can’t quite figure it out. This one, I’m more understanding.
Lol! Then he should start the Broke College Athlete Fund Foundation…
-
@Marco Well maybe since he’ll be a multi-millionaire this time next year, we can direct our concern to folks that really need it. “lol”
-
@HighEliteMajor Oh, no, I was just replying and supporting your point that the Memphis facts apparently did not need lots of investigation. The “cud” comment was directed to the fact that the phone allegation was really the only serious new thing that the complaint contained (we suspected or had read the rest previously, knowing what we did from the trial), yet the NOI took so long they must have been straining with the issue awhile.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk Again, I don’t think our NCAA venom is entirely well placed. The suspension for Wiseman was relatively predictable. See Bilas’ comments before the suspension was released. We’ve seen guys get suspensions based on the improper benefits, and that it’s based on the amount received. The NCAA always requires payback. And if you review the terms, it’s very flexible, almost permitting him to skate on some of it.
@ajvan The reason, I think, is because of the facts with Wiseman were well developed and known. When there is more info to be added, investigated, etc., that takes more time. Silvio situation was less than clear with all the denials and b.s. out there. Same with Preston. Wiseman, there were no real denials of what took place if I understood it right. The issue was just what would occur because of it. But I’m not defending the time delays.
However, the ridiculous delays we saw with the NCAA in some of our cases – Diallo sticks out to me – were really a joke.
My beef isn’t with the NCAA in this case. I believe it was open and shut, run of the mill eligibility stuff that they handled relatively quickly.
My beef with the NCAA is they don’t follow their own precedents and sanctions vary widely between cases with very similar facts.
