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.

 

Whew...allegation #1 does not read well at all. Reads more like a Penthouse forum letter, and not in a good way.

Jurich -- as always -- the sharpest guy in the room during this press conference. Using a lot of the language that will be key to Pitino's defense of Allegation No. 4: "McGee acted furtively", "actively hidden from Pitino", "ultimate secrecy kept"...

 

The NCAA violation in this is what Pitino "should have known" in his capacity as head coach. His defense is that there was an active effort to conceal it from him, making it impossible for him to have known.

 

Jurich and Smrt know the legal standards for these violations and just laid out Pitino's defense without directly stating it.

Jurich -- as always -- the sharpest guy in the room during this press conference. Using a lot of the language that will be key to Pitino's defense of Allegation No. 4: "McGee acted furtively", "actively hidden from Pitino", "ultimate secrecy kept"...

 

The NCAA violation in this is what Pitino "should have known" in his capacity as head coach. His defense is that there was an active effort to conceal it from him, making it impossible for him to have known.

 

Jurich and Smrt know the legal standards for these violations and just laid out Pitino's defense without directly stating it.

 

What Pitino did or did not know might not matter. Under the most recent NCAA enforcement legislation, enacted in 2014, a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of any and all staff members and can be held accountable for their violations, even if the coach is unaware. (according to espn.com)

This made me laugh:

@Bluekel Pitino retakes the lead over Giuliani in 9/11 mentions

What Pitino did or did not know might not matter. Under the most recent NCAA enforcement legislation, enacted in 2014, a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of any and all staff members and can be held accountable for their violations, even if the coach is unaware. (according to espn.com)

 

The presumption is a rebuttable one and that's precisely the groundwork laid at the press conference today.

 

The university's response to the initial notice of allegations will include all relevant details in their attempt to rebut the presumption.

 

The word "presumed" is massively important because it means that head coaches cannot be held strictly liable for the actions of their subordinates, rather that they have to make a good case for themselves as to why they did not and should not have been able to know what was going on.

 

As I said earlier, I think this is all mostly procedural and makes sure UofL stays involved in the process. Following the season, Pitino will ultimately receive a suspension and serve it.

@Getslow could there be possible criminal charges for McGee since some of these players were minors during the visits?

Is this even likely at this point?

Do you think anyone will press this issue with the prosecutor in Jefferson County?

Any prosecution is more likley against Ms. Powell in my opnion especially if there is probable cause that she pimped out underage girls including her daughter. If any crimes she may be charged with are felonies, remember that there is no statute of limitations in Kentucky on prosecuting felonies (one year on misdemeanors).

....I'm wondering why UL would not sit down with the NCAA and try to settle this thing right now. I doubt that any new "facts" will come out.

....I'm wondering why UL would not sit down with the NCAA and try to settle this thing right now. I doubt that any new "facts" will come out.

 

Just a guess, but if this were to be wrapped up in the near future, Pitino's probable suspension could happen this year. By not rushing it, the suspension will likely be at the beginning of the 2017-18 season.

@Getslow could there be possible criminal charges for McGee since some of these players were minors during the visits?

Is this even likely at this point?

Do you think anyone will press this issue with the prosecutor in Jefferson County?

 

If a witness comes forward with serious evidence and basically presents him or herself to the police and starts spilling stuff, it could happen. I'll be shocked if anyone is conducting a significant investigation with the aim of pursuing charges without that happening first.

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.

 

Much to your obvious chagrin, the answer to that question, regardless of how many times it gets asked and who gets asked, is going to be "School policy is not to comment on pending investigations / appeals. Next question."

Just a guess, but if this were to be wrapped up in the near future, Pitino's probable suspension could happen this year. By not rushing it, the suspension will likely be at the beginning of the 2017-18 season.

I was thinking that as part of the settlement it could be stipulated that his suspension would begin on any date the parties agreed upon. But maybe the NCAA does not work that way.