I am finding this punishment of Memphis interesting.

 

It begs some questions from me if the NCAA strips Memphis of their banner.

 

 

WHY did the NCAA not do the same for Kansas from the same game? Were there not similar accusations against one or two players on that team? :idunno:

 

WHY did the NCAA not do the same for Duke in '99 when it was later discovered that Maggette had taken money from an AAU coach prior to his Duke enrollment? :confused:

 

 

What a double standard IMO. :puke:

Not at UMASS that we know of, I'd say he probably did just didn't get caught. But he definitely did at Memphis and I think it's ridiculous he gets to walk away with nothing from the mess he caused down there. You will never convince me he didn't know those kids had cheated and he probably encouraged it to win at all cost.

 

That is your opinion..He was never charged with breaking any rules at Memphis and the NCAA has cleared him.

No I hate UK that bad, and love that Coach Cal is going to get busted doing lord knows what at UK. While I can't stand UK I will admit the NCAA treats them rather unfairly and will punish them 10 times worse than any other program for the same violation in basketball, so when Cal gets caught at UK (and he will see both his finals fours now removed for cheating) it is going to be bad.

 

No it's not because he's at UK as I stated earlier I truly believe the NCAA loves to hammer UK whenever possible worse than anyone, but it's just the nature of the NCAA a coach can cheat like crazy at a school and almost every time move on to another school and suffer no consequences for his indiscretions. The one obvious exception that I know of is Kelvin Sampson.

 

 

 

The NCAA hates UK? What in the world are you basing that on? I guess you've never heard the old joke that goes

 

" The NCAA was so mad at Kentucky, it put Cleveland State on probation."

No I hate UK that bad, and love that Coach Cal is going to get busted doing lord knows what at UK. While I can't stand UK I will admit the NCAA treats them rather unfairly and will punish them 10 times worse than any other program for the same violation in basketball, so when Cal gets caught at UK (and he will see both his finals fours now removed for cheating) it is going to be bad.

 

I'm pretty new here, I was just wondering why you hate UK that bad?

While I understand that both at Umass and Memphis, Cal was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, as a diehard UK fan, this makes me nervous. If you are a UK fan, how can this not make you nervous? It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what Cal has brought to UK so far, ... but 2 programs and both may have to take down their final 4 banners puts me a little on edge.

While I understand that both at Umass and Memphis, Cal was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, as a diehard UK fan, this makes me nervous. If you are a UK fan, how can this not make you nervous? It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what Cal has brought to UK so far, ... but 2 programs and both may have to take down their final 4 banners puts me a little on edge.

 

I agree, I am skeptic too.

This sounds like a Louisville fan thread to me.

I think it's hilarious.

Not at UMASS that we know of, I'd say he probably did just didn't get caught. But he definitely did at Memphis and I think it's ridiculous he gets to walk away with nothing from the mess he caused down there. You will never convince me he didn't know those kids had cheated and he probably encouraged it to win at all cost.

 

How so?

What I don't get is, the NCAA cleared Rose to play, what is their (the NCAA) punishment for clearing an ineligible player? Why would Memphis even look in to the academic background of a kid if the NCAA has cleared them?

Someone's hatred for UK is clouding their judgment :lol:. Almost as bad as UK fans love for UK clouds theirs...

 

Maybe this is the "other" 18 % :idunno:

I am not criticizing the ruling in this thread, but would rather like to talk about the whole idea of "vacating" wins. What does it really do? Nothing, in my opinion.

 

When you name the teams in the Final Four in 1996, you do not say, "Kentucky, Mississippi State, Syracuse, _________"

 

During the 2005 College Football season, Oklahoma had to vacate their 8 wins including a Holiday Bowl victory, did anyone really care or should they have cared? (those wins were later appealed and credited to OU).

What I don't get is, the NCAA cleared Rose to play, what is their (the NCAA) punishment for clearing an ineligible player? Why would Memphis even look in to the academic background of a kid if the NCAA has cleared them?

 

Same thing with Darrell Arthur of Kansas. Someone supposedly changed his high school grades, but yet the NCAA cleared him, then the NCAA tries to punish Kansas.

 

 

They may vacate wins from Memphis, but whether they should or not is a different story.

 

The NCAA is more to blame than anyone for clearing these players without more extensive researching of their grades.

Question is, are UK fans willing to accept the kind of athlete's that Calipari is going to bring in?

 

Fact of the matter is, while Calipari's never been found guilty of major violations (or maybe he has, I don't know), the type of player's he recruits most certainly have. Are the UK fans fine with "win at all costs"?

Question is, are UK fans willing to accept the kind of athlete's that Calipari is going to bring in?

 

Fact of the matter is, while Calipari's never been found guilty of major violations (or maybe he has, I don't know), the type of player's he recruits most certainly have. Are the UK fans fine with "win at all costs"?

 

As long as no rules are broken in the process then I see nothing wrong with the type of athletes he brings in.