^ Thanks Grizz! :thumb::lol2:

 

Just saw this one:

 

Not Jerry Tipton @NotJerryTipton

 

Q: "You're holding the murder weapon. Did you kill him?"

 

A: "I ain't sayin'."

 

Q: "OK then. You're free to go."

 

- If the NCAA were a cop

^ I have a Twitter. I follow two people. NotJerryTipton and NotANark.

To me it is not at much about Duke as it is about the continued baffling inconsistencies that come from Indianapolis. This case was bad perception wise because it is pretty cut and dry as to what happened and of course the Duke angle. Thomas purchased something WELL beyond his means and got in trouble for his actions. This is not a "He said, she said; two sides to every story" type allegation. It apparently happened by accounts. Heck, is Thomas even refuting it? Most of the cases there are some gray areas as to the offense but in this instance there is not really one. But the NCAA's investigation found Duke is not to be held accountable in any way for a shady transgression between Thomas and the jeweler. Fair enough, I guess, if that is going to be the NCAA's line of thinking in these type cases; however, they have shown time and again that is not their typical line of thinking. We have been told that athletes are not allowed to use their "celebrity" profile to enhance their status to receive any extra benefit regardless of the school's knowledge, as the school is still supposed to be at fault. Who knows?

To me it is not at much about Duke as it is about the continued baffling inconsistencies that come from Indianapolis. This case was bad perception wise because it is pretty cut and dry as to what happened and of course the Duke angle. Thomas purchased something WELL beyond his means and got in trouble for his actions. This is not a "He said, she said; two sides to every story" type allegation. It apparently happened by accounts. Heck, is Thomas even refuting it? Most of the cases there are some gray areas as to the offense but in this instance there is not really one. But the NCAA's investigation found Duke is not to be held accountable in any way for a shady transgression between Thomas and the jeweler. Fair enough, I guess, if that is going to be the NCAA's line of thinking in these type cases; however, they have shown time and again that is not their typical line of thinking. We have been told that athletes are not allowed to use their "celebrity" profile to enhance their status to receive any extra benefit regardless of the school's knowledge, as the school is still supposed to be at fault. Who knows?

 

Even if Duke wasn't at fault couldn't they retroactively rule Thomas ineligible thus forcing Duke to forfeit any games he played in?

 

Isn't that what happened with Rose/Memphis, or was Memphis found to have done something wrong there as well?

Even if Duke wasn't at fault couldn't they retroactively rule Thomas ineligible thus forcing Duke to forfeit any games he played in?

 

Isn't that what happened with Rose/Memphis, or was Memphis found to have done something wrong there as well?

 

RE: Duke. Yes, but apparently they are not going to do that.

 

RE: Memphis. In the Memphis situation Rose was cleared by both the NCAA and Memphis to play. There were some question marks all along but according to the Memphis research done and evidence collected in their investigation not enough there was to support ruling him ineligible which is why he played.

^ I have a Twitter. I follow two people. NotJerryTipton and NotANark.

 

:lol2:

Thomas has refuted this since day one and assured everyone he would be vindicated once he was able to speak to the NCAA. Coach K pretty much said the same thing. This is the exact opposite. It was he said she said and obviously there wasn't enough evidence to penalize Thomas or Duke. I see this everyday as Union President. The company may know without a doubt that employee A was asleep but if they cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that employee A was asleep then you cannot fire employee A for being asleep.

 

Simple as that.

Thomas has refuted this since day one and assured everyone he would be vindicated once he was able to speak to the NCAA. Coach K pretty much said the same thing. This is the exact opposite. It was he said she said and obviously there wasn't enough evidence to penalize Thomas or Duke. I see this everyday as Union President. The company may know without a doubt that employee A was asleep but if they cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that employee A was asleep then you cannot fire employee A for being asleep.

 

Simple as that.

I hear you, but Thomas has refused to speak with the NCAA from what I understand. His vindication appears to be in the form of he is not going to say a word since the NCAA has no subpoena power and in this case apparently not a clear enough of a reason to lay down the hammer that Thomas's stature of being a Duke player is what allowed him to receive the loan. I would not call that vindication just like I would not say Brian Braun was vindicated last year. He or Duke is not going to be found guilty of any wrongdoing because of it.

 

And for the record I have no issue if a player is able to use their status to secure a loan. I get the "slippery slope" angle in it all so there may need to be some parameters to it all, but to me it is a private transgression between the student-athlete and the lender doing their due diligence.

Typical.

 

RE: Duke. Yes, but apparently they are not going to do that.

 

RE: Memphis. In the Memphis situation Rose was cleared by both the NCAA and Memphis to play. There were some question marks all along but according to the Memphis research done and evidence collected in their investigation not enough there was to support ruling him ineligible which is why he played.

 

I know they aren't going to I was just asking if it was an option.

 

And I also knew Rose was cleared to play. Was just curious if the scenario I mentioned is what happened. They retroactively ruled him ineligible making Memphis forfeit all games he played in right?

I know they aren't going to I was just asking if it was an option.

 

And I also knew Rose was cleared to play. Was just curious if the scenario I mentioned is what happened. They retroactively ruled him ineligible making Memphis forfeit all games he played in right?

Correct.

Thomas has refuted this since day one and assured everyone he would be vindicated once he was able to speak to the NCAA. Coach K pretty much said the same thing. This is the exact opposite. It was he said she said and obviously there wasn't enough evidence to penalize Thomas or Duke. I see this everyday as Union President. The company may know without a doubt that employee A was asleep but if they cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that employee A was asleep then you cannot fire employee A for being asleep.

 

Simple as that.

 

I agree with you. NCAA just isn't consistent . Memphis got penalized without any proof. NCAA picks and chooses who they penalize without evidence .

I agree with you. NCAA just isn't consistent . Memphis got penalized without any proof. NCAA picks and chooses who they penalize without evidence .

 

 

The NCAA is easily the most inconsistent governing body I have ever seen.

Like UNC academics and the NCAA....nothing to see here. Move on.

RE: Duke. Yes, but apparently they are not going to do that.

 

RE: Memphis. In the Memphis situation Rose was cleared by both the NCAA and Memphis to play. There were some question marks all along but according to the Memphis research done and evidence collected in their investigation not enough there was to support ruling him ineligible which is why he played.

That's not exactly the story.....the NCAA met with Calipari and Rose....they said they had concern that he might not have taken the test.....and that if they played him, they were at risk if he was found ineligible....Cal asked Rose...he said he took the test.....Cal played him. Now, the NCAA never had to prove that he didn't take it. Rose said he would cooperate with the investigation....but once he left Memphis....he refused to speak to the NCAA again......case closed.