Agreed. UofL says that "failure to monitor" McGee is the one allegation they're going to contest so it likely won't be until next year that he serves it.

 

Personally I think that's a mistake...take this "slap on the wrist" and move on cause it could have and maybe should have been a LOT worse. They should count their lucky stars.

 

If they contest this, and I was the guy it came before, my first response would be..."so Mr. UofL representative, you are disputing the "failure to monitor" portion of the finding in regards to Mr. McGee. So, are you telling me that Mr. Pitino WAS adequately monitoring Mr. McGee? You might want to think about your answer a little before you respond".

Don't forget the self-imposed postseason ban for a team that could have made some noise (as opposed to a Syracuse team that was a bubble team anyway). If this works out as early indications seem, Smrt convincing Jurich to go for that seems BRILLIANT.

 

I'm sorry, but that's the most irksome name of all time....Where the heck is the "A"! :lol2:

I honestly didn't expect any more sanctions, outside of a Pitino suspension which is likely to come.

The saltiness on social media is real.

I'm sorry, but that's the most irksome name of all time....Where the heck is the "A"! :lol2:

Kind of like the missing "H" in Derrick Caracter. Gets me annoyed every time I think of it.

 

Smrt is worse though. Every word has a vowel, doesn't it?

Initial reaction: nothing is surprising and no penalties directly laid at the feet of the institution. Frankly, this looks like the best possible result for Louisville. The lack of surprises tells me that hiring Chuck Smrt to do a concurrent investigation was worth every penny to the university.

 

100% agree.

Donnie Tyndall clearly should have just bought women for his players to use.

The saltiness on social media is real.

 

I've seen nothing even close to that...:idunno:

How does Louisville voluntarily making itself ineligible for post season play last year look now?

 

I'd say smart. Got it out of the way.

I'd say smart. Got it out of the way.

 

You mean Smrt.:lol2:

Personally I think that's a mistake...take this "slap on the wrist" and move on cause it could have and maybe should have been a LOT worse. They should count their lucky stars.

 

If they contest this, and I was the guy it came before, my first response would be..."so Mr. UofL representative, you are disputing the "failure to monitor" portion of the finding in regards to Mr. McGee. So, are you telling me that Mr. Pitino WAS adequately monitoring Mr. McGee? You might want to think about your answer a little before you respond".

 

It's all about process and scheduling. 150 days for the response and finalization process with the NOA, then a hearing has to be put on the schedule. Drags the whole thing out past the end of the season and then they'll wind up with some sort of agreed sanction that will likely be Pitino sitting out games in November and December of the 2017-18 season.

 

The new "failure to monitor" rules are also largely untested so that could play into it as well. They'll use the process available to them and the NCAA's enforcement people know that.

It's worth noting that these reports are only the findings of the investigation. There are no recommendations for possible punishments. That reason alone is enough for UofL to stay involved in the process with an appeal as it helps keep some measure of control within the process. Don't let the NCAA determine punishment without being able to make your own offer as part of the process.

It's all about process and scheduling. 150 days for the response and finalization process with the NOA, then a hearing has to be put on the schedule. Drags the whole thing out past the end of the season and then they'll wind up with some sort of agreed sanction that will likely be Pitino sitting out games in November and December of the 2017-18 season.

 

The new "failure to monitor" rules are also largely untested so that could play into it as well. They'll use the process available to them and the NCAA's enforcement people know that.

 

Even if the NCAA is neutral on the contest and just looks at it as a simple disagreement and reads noting into it, I think it's cherry pie time for the press. So, now I'm a reporter who loves to see UofL sweat. The very next press conference I go to, I'm asking Jurich, Pitino, whoever..."the "failure to monitor" portion of the finding is being disputed. So, am I to then deduce Mr. Jurich that you are saying Coach Pitino did indeed have the proper oversight of Coach McGee? And if in fact you do believe the oversight was adequate, does that not then suggest that Coach Pitino WAS AWARE of what was going on within the program and with Coach McGee"?

 

I mean, you can't have it both ways, right? UofL can't claim the oversight was adequate, then claim Pitino had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on.

Even if the NCAA is neutral on the contest and just looks at it as a simple disagreement and reads noting into it, I think it's cherry pie time for the press. So, now I'm a reporter who loves to see UofL sweat. The very next press conference I go to, I'm asking Jurich, Pitino, whoever..."the "failure to monitor" portion of the finding is being disputed. So, am I to then deduce Mr. Jurich that you are saying Coach Pitino did indeed have the proper oversight of Coach McGee? And if in fact you do believe the oversight was adequate, does that not then suggest that Coach Pitino WAS AWARE of what was going on within the program and with Coach McGee"?

 

I mean, you can't have it both ways, right? UofL can't claim the oversight was adequate, then claim Pitino had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on.

 

No, these people aren't fools. It's about questioning the NCAA's definition of "failure to monitor" and what that actually means. What's the standard? What are the requirements of compliance? What does the NCAA expect out of head coaches? It's relatively untested and so the argument can be made that coaches don't really know the answers to those things as regards the NCAA's definitions.

 

It's not hard to talk around this one and that's exactly what they'll do before ultimately taking the sanctions once the season's over.

The full report is on here:

 

NCAA Notice of Allegations Released

 

When you see Allegation No. 1 all laid out like that it's... not great.

 

I think Nos. 2, 3, and 4 have fairly obvious paths to their conclusion, but No. 1 is the only one that gives me pause.