A great perspective on the Boatright situation

[HuskyBballFan]

I really think these guys do a great job crunching numbers and using the new-aged stats to breakdown Uconn's games. But I also found their latest post on the Boatright situation to be spot on.

The biggest points (for those who don't want to read the whole thing)...
1) How absurd it is that under the NCAA model a player is guilty (i.e. suspended) until proven innocent.
2) The dangerous precedent being set here in terms of random whistleblower "tips" leading to players missing games.

http://uconnbythenumbers.com/2012/01/2-thoughts-on-the-boatright-situation/

 

[businesslawyer]

I think it would be dangerous to assume that the NCAA said something to cause UConn to keep Boatright on the bench just because a tip was given, as opposed to having made a preliminary judgment about the veracity of the allegation.

I know patience in the internet age is simply dead, but now that we've had time to vent I would really recommend waiting to see what happens before over analyzing this. Is it possible that the NCAA will suspend the Plumleys when they get Fishy's email that he gives them goats annually? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible this is something that would only be done to UConn because of personal grudges? Yes, it's possible. But, in either case, do you really believe that is where the smart money is being placed?

The best part of the linked blog, however, is the discussion concerning the absurdity of rules designed to protect amateurism in an environment where state universities are acting as monopolists in a manner that businessmen would never think they could get away with.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

The NCAA does not dictate that a player is held out when being investigated. The school decides to hold the player out because if the player is found 'guilty' then the school must forfeit all of the games they played in. It may just be semantics, but the NCAA is not dictating that RB be held out....that is UConn's choice in order to protect the team/program from giving up all of their wins. So it isn't really 'guilty until proven innocent'...but still a screwed up situation none-the-less.

 

[Danzz]

The NCAA does not dictate that a player is held out when being investigated. The school decides to hold the player out because if the player is found 'guilty' then the school must forfeit all of the games they played in. It may just be semantics, but the NCAA is not dictating that RB be held out....that is UConn's choice in order to protect the team/program from giving up all of their wins. So it isn't really 'guilty until proven innocent'...but still a screwed up situation none-the-less.

True, but the NCAA initiates the action by Uconn by informing the university of the allegation and the pending NCAA investigation. Uconn made the safest decision by benching Boatright and protecting wins during the period of the investigation. It sucks but it is what is best for the team.
The NCAA really has to take a hard look at thier antiquated policies and rules. Maybe it would be best to eliminate participation in AAU programs entirely.

 

[DogMania]

True, but the NCAA initiates the action by Uconn by informing the university of the allegation and the pending NCAA investigation. Uconn made the safest decision by benching Boatright and protecting wins during the period of the investigation. It sucks but it is what is best for the team.
The NCAA really has to take a hard look at thier antiquated policies and rules. Maybe it would be best to eliminate participation in AAU programs entirely.

I would suggest that the NCAAs should do a preliminary cursory investigation on many of these allegations where the school is not directly implicated before informing the school that the player is being investigated. That type of practice would protect both the player and school from bad intel, where they could still wield their big hammer once they feel that the intel appears to have some merit. Now granted, under this process a program could end up benefiting for a few games as a result of playing a talented but apparently should-be-ineligible player, but it would protect programs and legit players from having to sit out due to bogus accusations. I doubt that it will ever happen that way. I long for the day that the BCS schools break away from this evil empire. Granted it might be replace evil with evil, but the current one p*sses me off to no end with their heavy handed and biased actions.

 

[hungry husky]

Pretty bad-ass last paragraph. Go Huskies.

 

[HuskyCarlJ]

First off, to the OP, thanks for the shout out.

Secondly to this point:

I think it would be dangerous to assume that the NCAA said something to cause UConn to keep Boatright on the bench just because a tip was given, as opposed to having made a preliminary judgment about the veracity of the allegation.

I know patience in the internet age is simply dead, but now that we've had time to vent I would really recommend waiting to see what happens before over analyzing this. Is it possible that the NCAA will suspend the Plumleys when they get Fishy's email that he gives them goats annually? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible this is something that would only be done to UConn because of personal grudges? Yes, it's possible. But, in either case, do you really believe that is where the smart money is being placed?

The best part of the linked blog, however, is the discussion concerning the absurdity of rules designed to protect amateurism in an environment where state universities are acting as monopolists in a manner that businessmen would never think they could get away with.

I think you're right that the NCAA probably doesn't suggest to UConn that Boatright be held out unless they have something. I know I used it as a hypothetical example in the article, but I really don't think there's much of a possibility of finding out that there was nothing to suspend him for.

That said, I do think there's something inherently unfair about making a player wait until the matter is adjudicated in order to know the length of his suspension. If this were a pro sport Boatright would be on the floor until the league determined his suspension length, then forced to sit out for as many games as the league determined was fair. I just think the lack of transparency in the NCAA process is what's the most frustrating. That and the fact that suspension lengths seem to be completely arbitrary.

The real problem to me, is the specter of vacating games that looms over everything. If they're convinced that Boatright is guilty of something (which I agree, they are), why not give UConn notice of the investigation, a timetable of how long it might take, and give them the option of starting his suspension while the investigation is on-going? Instead they make a kid and his teammates slog through the frustrations of an "indefinite" suspension (which makes it a much bigger distraction for his teammates who were completely uninvolved) for something which (as I noted in my point about amateurism BL mentioned) ought not to be that big a deal to begin with.

 

[HooperScooper]

The NCAA does not dictate that a player is held out when being investigated. The school decides to hold the player out because if the player is found 'guilty' then the school must forfeit all of the games they played in. It may just be semantics, but the NCAA is not dictating that RB be held out....that is UConn's choice in order to protect the team/program from giving up all of their wins. So it isn't really 'guilty until proven innocent'...but still a screwed up situation none-the-less.

But hasn't he already played this season? UConn held him out in the beginning of the season until a ruling was made and that made sense since if they found something horrible Boatright could have been ineligible. So if the NCAA finds something new now they're going to say the 10 games he played are O.K. but the next whatever how many until they do rule on whatever it is they are looking for aren't O.K.? The NCAA is duck*ed up.

 

[HuskyHawk]

But hasn't he already played this season? UConn held him out in the beginning of the season until a ruling was made and that made sense since if they found something horrible Boatright could have been ineligible. So if the NCAA finds something new now they're going to say the 10 games he played are O.K. but the next whatever how many until they do rule on whatever it is they are looking for aren't O.K.? The NCAA is duck*ed up.

Agreed. It's time to eliminate all penalties on the school for AAU and high school infractions. The kids often don't know they even did anything wrong. The schools have no way of knowing. They system is stupid. Saying a kid isn't an amateur because he once got some slight benefit from being good at sports is insane. Professional means that you played the sport "as your profession". I'm sure most every HS QB gets the girls. Is that an impermissible benefit? They should create a cut-off point where minor benefits are considered inconsequential and irrelevant, and focus on bigger payoffs.

 

[John Fryer]

The NCAA does not dictate that a player is held out when being investigated. The school decides to hold the player out because if the player is found 'guilty' then the school must forfeit all of the games they played in. It may just be semantics, but the NCAA is not dictating that RB be held out....that is UConn's choice in order to protect the team/program from giving up all of their wins. So it isn't really 'guilty until proven innocent'...but still a screwed up situation none-the-less.

Your argument would make sense, at least to me, if only two parties were involved.

However, RB and his rights are the third, and most directly affected, party involved in this mess.

What/who protects his rights?

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[freescooter]

Agreed. It's time to eliminate all penalties on the school for AAU and high school infractions. The kids often don't know they even did anything wrong. The schools have no way of knowing. They system is stupid. Saying a kid isn't an amateur because he once got some slight benefit from being good at sports is insane. Professional means that you played the sport "as your profession". I'm sure most every HS QB gets the girls. Is that an impermissible benefit? They should create a cut-off point where minor benefits are considered inconsequential and irrelevant, and focus on bigger payoffs.

I know this is a radical idea, but if you're a really good basketball player who has visions of playing at a high level D1 program, you ought to know the rules and follow them. I'd go even further and say if you're coaching an AAU team with players that have the possiblity of going on to high level D1 programs, YOU should also know the rules and explain them to your players. You think Boatright's coach didn't know he was getting a plane ticket to some games when he arrived late and didn't travel with the rest of the team? AAU teams can arrange and pay for travel for their players, so the argument that it was the only way he could get to a tournament is entirely bogus. And somehow it isn't the kids who end up at Central Connecticut or Southern Connecticut or Wesleyan, most of whom also play AAU ball, who get these extra benefits. UCONN has how many players on its roster? Every one was an elite player before UCONN, and all but one apparently managed to comply with NCAA eligibility rules. Why was that, do you think? Personally I'd rather the NCAA crack down harder on these rules violations. Make them wait a year before playing. Somehow I bet you'd see lots more kids who learn the rules, and follow the rules. And the NCAA isn't going to bust chops on a kid who got a free pizza when he was 12. And I'd be shocked if Boatright's issue has to do with something that happened in Jr. High. These events almost always involve recent, or relatively recent matters. I know this isn't a popular position, but isn't it as likely that boatright knew he took improper benefits, but didn't disclose them for fear that it would interfere with his playing at UCONN? And isn't it just as likely that when the last suspension ended, he said to himself, "Phew, I'm sure glad they didn't find out about the trip to Bountiful, too. Then I'd reallybe screwed?" I suspect that that scenario is just as likely as any other that has been played out here.

 

[John Fryer]

I know this is a radical idea, but if you're a really good basketball player who has visions of playing at a high level D1 program, you ought to know the rules and follow them. I'd go even further and say if you're coaching an AAU team with players that have the possiblity of going on to high level D1 programs, YOU should also know the rules and explain them to your players. You think Boatright's coach didn't know he was getting a plane ticket to some games when he arrived late and didn't travel with the rest of the team? AAU teams can arrange and pay for travel for their players, so the argument that it was the only way he could get to a tournament is entirely bogus. And somehow it isn't the kids who end up at Central Connecticut or Southern Connecticut or Wesleyan, most of whom also play AAU ball, who get these extra benefits. UCONN has how many players on its roster? Every one was an elite player before UCONN, and all but one apparently managed to comply with NCAA eligibility rules. Why was that, do you think? Personally I'd rather the NCAA crack down harder on these rules violations. Make them wait a year before playing. Somehow I bet you'd see lots more kids who learn the rules, and follow the rules. And the NCAA isn't going to bust chops on a kid who got a free pizza when he was 12. And I'd be shocked if Boatright's issue has to do with something that happened in Jr. High. These events almost always involve recent, or relatively recent matters. I know this isn't a popular position, but isn't it as likely that boatright knew he took improper benefits, but didn't disclose them for fear that it would interfere with his playing at UCONN? And isn't it just as likely that when the last suspension ended, he said to himself, "Phew, I'm sure glad they didn't find out about the trip to Bountiful, too. Then I'd reallybe screwed?" I suspect that that scenario is just as likely as any other that has been played out here.

Wow, according to your logic, we should expect 17/18 year olds to be as, if not more, responsible than adults.

It is almost always faster, simpler and less complicated to punish the player without even taking a serious look at the underlying systemic issues that might be involved.

You know, simple things like due process, being presumed innocent until proven guilty and simple fairness.

For whatever reasons RB missed the AAU's team flight. He was provided a plane ticket to join his AAU team.

What exactly is the problem with that?

Better yet, why should that even be a problem? (Provided, of course, and as you pointed out, there aren't any other issues involved.)

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[freescooter]

John,
Yeah, I am holding 17-18 year olds to a standard. Not only 17-18 year olds, but their parents and guardians and their AAU/high school coaches, too. Considering nearly every college athlete complies with that standard, I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe you can explain it. Let's see...there is a rule. It is widely known and most people follow it. kemba Walker followed it. Drummond Followed it. Alex Oriakhi followed it. Shabazz Napier followed it. Tell me why Ryan Boatright should be exempt. I assume that these kids and their parents, guardians and coaches are smart enough to know the rules. Whie I'm not necessarily accusing you, I've seen other posts of yours that are completely rational, I do see a tendency here to assume that these athletes are just "dumb jocks" and couldn't possibly be intellegent enough to follow something as complex as NCAA eligibility rules.

As to your question about the problem with him missing a flight and being given a ticket, I guess there are a few answers. 1. It depends on who paid for the ticket. If his mom did, that isn't a problem. If his AAU team did, that isn't either as I understand it. But what if it was an agent? what if it was Nochimson for example? there are rules in place. for a reason. He should follow them, no?

As far as due process, the NCAA got reamed by the US Supreme Court over that very issue in the Tarkanian case. They have due process in these cases.

One last point, since I went back and re-read your post. On the systemic issues. I think we're in agreement that the AAU system is a sludgepit. Unfortunately the NCAA doesn't control it and th ecollege coaches like it. I think the NCAA could have some impact if it wanted to, but the coaches would battle to the last man to keep the currnet system. hell, where would you rather go on a recuriting trip, Las Vegas or some high school gym in some grimy small city in central Ohio, followed by one in east Tennessee? I'd like to see the NCAA crack down on the AAU system, maybe with a certification process for caoches and teams and tournaments where if you played for an uncertified team you undergo a much more rigorous review. While that won't solve all the problems, it will be a start.

 

[Danzz]

Agreed. It's time to eliminate all penalties on the school for AAU and high school infractions. The kids often don't know they even did anything wrong. The schools have no way of knowing. They system is stupid. Saying a kid isn't an amateur because he once got some slight benefit from being good at sports is insane. Professional means that you played the sport "as your profession". I'm sure most every HS QB gets the girls. Is that an impermissible benefit? They should create a cut-off point where minor benefits are considered inconsequential and irrelevant, and focus on bigger payoffs.

Better to eliminate the AAU if it were possible. The AAU programs and some of the scum involved in them create a lot of problems.
The NCAA is screwed up but they have no choice but to investigate the Boatright allegations. Sure, they could move a lot quicker but you have to have some authority to police this stuff. Before I'd blame the NCAA, blame the universities because they provide the people who run the NCAA.

 

[freescooter]

Better to eliminate the AAU if it were possible. The AAU programs and some of the scum involved in them create a lot of problems.
The NCAA is screwed up but they have no choice but to investigate the Boatright allegations. Sure, they could move a lot quicker but you have to have some authority to police this stuff. Before I'd blame the NCAA, blame the universities because they provide the people who run the NCAA.

I agree with you there. And before I'd blame the NCAA exclusively, I'd blame Boatright since if he hadn't violated the rules, apparently taking a plane ticket the first time, he wouldn't have had to miss the first 6 games.

 

[freescooter]

The ironic thing in all this is that back in the day, the AAU pretty much oversaw all amatuer athletics except those under the NCAA and golf, which was under the USGA and Tennis under the USTA. But the AAU was known to be absolutely unflinching in enforcement of its rules. Guys were banned form international competition for getting awards that were permitted by the NCAA but considered too valuable by the AAU. Not cash, but things like team rings. There was a US miler, back in the 1950s who was banned from competiton (an AAU ban effectively banned you from all competiton except events sponsored by the NCAA) because he recieved a camera that was deemed to be $1 higher than the AAU value limit, based on the exchange rate between the German mark, the British pound and the US dollar. He missed a full year of competition because of that ruling.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I know this is a radical idea, but if you're a really good basketball player who has visions of playing at a high level D1 program, you ought to know the rules and follow them. I'd go even further and say if you're coaching an AAU team with players that have the possiblity of going on to high level D1 programs, YOU should also know the rules and explain them to your players. You think Boatright's coach didn't know he was getting a plane ticket to some games when he arrived late and didn't travel with the rest of the team? AAU teams can arrange and pay for travel for their players, so the argument that it was the only way he could get to a tournament is entirely bogus. And somehow it isn't the kids who end up at Central Connecticut or Southern Connecticut or Wesleyan, most of whom also play AAU ball, who get these extra benefits. UCONN has how many players on its roster? Every one was an elite player before UCONN, and all but one apparently managed to comply with NCAA eligibility rules. Why was that, do you think? Personally I'd rather the NCAA crack down harder on these rules violations. Make them wait a year before playing. Somehow I bet you'd see lots more kids who learn the rules, and follow the rules. And the NCAA isn't going to bust chops on a kid who got a free pizza when he was 12. And I'd be shocked if Boatright's issue has to do with something that happened in Jr. High. These events almost always involve recent, or relatively recent matters. I know this isn't a popular position, but isn't it as likely that boatright knew he took improper benefits, but didn't disclose them for fear that it would interfere with his playing at UCONN? And isn't it just as likely that when the last suspension ended, he said to himself, "Phew, I'm sure glad they didn't find out about the trip to Bountiful, too. Then I'd reallybe screwed?" I suspect that that scenario is just as likely as any other that has been played out here.

I'd suggest that any high school student has more important things to worry about. In any given instance, do you know whether the rules were explained by the parent, AAU coach or someone else? I'd rather they spent some time learning Algebra II, rather than focusing on overly complex rules which serve no real purpose. Given that there is no professional league these kids could play in, they are not professionals. For foreign players, that is different. The rest of the world doesn't make these distinctions. The Olympics now permit professionals. If there exists a system that is willing to fund the basketball, football, hockey or other development of young athletes, so that the burden does not fall on their families, why not let it?

In the Boatright case, as long as the money didn't come from a school recruiting him, what do you care? How is the competitive landscape of college basketball, which is the only thing the NCAA is or should be worried about, affected?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

freescooter,

Not sure it's fair to criticize Boatright for not following rules that you presume other players have. The only reason why the NCAA is privy to the Boatright stuff is because there's an angry whistleblower with an agenda to bring him down. The truth of the matter is none of us have any idea if every plane trip that Kemba, Shabazz, or Harrison Barnes took was appropriately paid for by NCAA standards. Chances are there are hundreds of current players, particularly those that played AAU, who've received an "improper benefit" - it's just that the NCAA would never know unless someone told them about it.

As far as what the kids themselves should be aware of, some things are more obvious than others. Sure, a kid should be wise enough to know not to accept a Blue Chips style duffle bag full of cash. But I would imagine there are tons of things that the NCAA considers "illegal" that 17 year-old kids wouldn't think twice about.

 

[freescooter]

I'd suggest that any high school student has more important things to worry about. In any given instance, do you know whether the rules were explained by the parent, AAU coach or someone else? I'd rather they spent some time learning Algebra II, rather than focusing on overly complex rules which serve no real purpose. Given that there is no professional league these kids could play in, they are not professionals. For foreign players, that is different. The rest of the world doesn't make these distinctions. The Olympics now permit professionals. If there exists a system that is willing to fund the basketball, football, hockey or other development of young athletes, so that the burden does not fall on their families, why not let it?

In the Boatright case, as long as the money didn't come from a school recruiting him, what do you care? How is the competitive landscape of college basketball, which is the only thing the NCAA is or should be worried about, affected?

I doubt you really believe this nonsense, but for a minute just think about it. A kid gets an airline ticket paid for? that isn't getting a free hot dog for heaven sakes. And now it seems that it happened more than once. And if you are serioulsy worried about the kid spending his time learning Algebra II, he probably would be better off not participating on a basketball team that flies kids all around the country for games. FYI, the rules are really not that vague. Have you ever read them? the intent is very clear. And if you have a question you can ask. So th eAAU club is missing their star and he shows up having flown in. They know they didn't pay. And they don't have a question? Please. If these rules are so onerous, how come 10 other kids on the UCONN roster didn't violate them? And 85 football players and 25 hockey players and 12 womens baksetball players, and most of the other players in the Big East?

And your rest of the world argument is specious. for one thing, the "rest of the world" doesn't have college athletics in any way, shape or form similar to what we have. So it really doesn't matter whether their players get paid or not. And as far as a system to develop young athletes, that's fine. When such a system exists, to the extent it doesn't already in our high school programs, those rules should probably apply. Right now we have a system in place at the college level that says you need to be an amateur. And it defines what that means and lays out standards that have to be met. Really it is no different from the fact that we have a game we call basketball. It has rules everyone agrees to play by. Jim Calhoun can't decide it would be better to play with 7 guys on the floor when everyone else agrees to 5. Even though he might think 7 would be a better number. Or even if he thought he could compete better against a particular team if he played 7 on 5. No different, really. the NCAA says you need to be an amateur. It defines that as it must and it includes some pretty bright lines about who can pay for you to go to athletic events. Boatright had a choice. He could follow the NCAA rules or he could not compete at an NCAA school. I fyou think the rules are bad, or unfair or if you think professionals should be able to play in college sports, by all means you are entitled to those opinions and you should begin a campaign to change any rules you don't like. But in the meantime, don't confuse someone's failure to comply with the existing rules with the idea that the rules are overly complex, or somehow unfair. While some NCAA rules and interpretations thereof are confusing and obtuse, the rules on amateurism are not.

 

[Mr. Hand]

Students are sent the NCAA handbook when they apply for eligibility. Among other things, it contains "the rules."

It's the same design, roughly, as most college student handbooks.

How many of you sat down and read the student handbooks you got along with the pile of other paperwork you lugged around on your first day of college? Be honest...

 

[freescooter]

freescooter,

Not sure it's fair to criticize Boatright for not following rules that you presume other players have. The only reason why the NCAA is privy to the Boatright stuff is because there's an angry whistleblower with an agenda to bring him down. The truth of the matter is none of us have any idea if every plane trip that Kemba, Shabazz, or Harrison Barnes took was appropriately paid for by NCAA standards. Chances are there are hundreds of current players, particularly those that played AAU, who've received an "improper benefit" - it's just that the NCAA would never know unless someone told them about it.

As far as what the kids themselves should be aware of, some things are more obvious than others. Sure, a kid should be wise enough to know not to accept a Blue Chips style duffle bag full of cash. But I would imagine there are tons of things that the NCAA considers "illegal" that 17 year-old kids wouldn't think twice about.

A plane ticket or the cash to buy one? Seriously? You don't think someone would think twice about that?

Don't get the idea that I thinkBoatright is a bad kid or anything. I just don't get all weepy for a kid who got caught doing something he shouldn't have been doing and with a minimal amount of effort could have known was against the rules. He screwed up and as a result UCONN is playing without an important piece of its puzzle for the 2nd time this year. I hope this thing gets settled quickly and he's back playing because we need him, but from my perspective, this likely could have been avoided if A. he had not taken improper benfits, or B. been completely forthcoming when he went to the NCAA clearing house before enrolling at UCONN, or C. been completely forthcoming when the NCAA investigated him the first time back in November. If he didn't violate the NCAA rules, there wouldn't be anything for the "angry whistleblower" to complain about. Any anger about this situation should first and foremost be directed at the player. this isn't a case where the NCAA dragged its feet in determining somebody's eligibility based on transcripts or something. Is "history of Canada since 1860" comparable to "History of the United States ince 1864?" or something like that. this is pretty black & white. He either took an improper payment or he didn't. And I'm guessing he did since we haven't heard anyone express the sentiment that he is totally innocent.

 

[freescooter]

Students are sent the NCAA handbook when they apply for eligibility. Among other things, it contains "the rules."

It's the same design, roughly, as most college student handbooks.

How many of you sat down and read the student handbooks you got along with the pile of other paperwork you lugged around on your first day of college? Be honest...

That is just not true. If you have a serious comment make it. Don't make up. The information is on line and when you apply for eligibility you need to answer a series of questions about where you have played, tournaments, and teams and whether you recieved payments from outside sources and in excess of the actual costs of travel and participation (eg applicaction fees, hotel stays and so forth). there is no "handbook" that is sent to you after the fact.

 

[ctchamps]

I know this is a radical idea, but if you're a really good basketball player who has visions of playing at a high level D1 program, you ought to know the rules and follow them. I'd go even further and say if you're coaching an AAU team with players that have the possiblity of going on to high level D1 programs, YOU should also know the rules and explain them to your players. You think Boatright's coach didn't know he was getting a plane ticket to some games when he arrived late and didn't travel with the rest of the team? AAU teams can arrange and pay for travel for their players, so the argument that it was the only way he could get to a tournament is entirely bogus. And somehow it isn't the kids who end up at Central Connecticut or Southern Connecticut or Wesleyan, most of whom also play AAU ball, who get these extra benefits. UCONN has how many players on its roster? Every one was an elite player before UCONN, and all but one apparently managed to comply with NCAA eligibility rules. Why was that, do you think? Personally I'd rather the NCAA crack down harder on these rules violations. Make them wait a year before playing. Somehow I bet you'd see lots more kids who learn the rules, and follow the rules. And the NCAA isn't going to bust chops on a kid who got a free pizza when he was 12. And I'd be shocked if Boatright's issue has to do with something that happened in Jr. High. These events almost always involve recent, or relatively recent matters. I know this isn't a popular position, but isn't it as likely that boatright knew he took improper benefits, but didn't disclose them for fear that it would interfere with his playing at UCONN? And isn't it just as likely that when the last suspension ended, he said to himself, "Phew, I'm sure glad they didn't find out about the trip to Bountiful, too. Then I'd reallybe screwed?" I suspect that that scenario is just as likely as any other that has been played out here.

According to this logic, universities should do away with compliance offices and the coaches should know and follow all the rules and not have to consult this department. And there should be no need for lawyers because we can all read books about the law. Maybe this this last statement has a bit of exaggeration in it. But expecting 16 - 18 year olds to memorize an NCAA compliance book is a stretch in my opinion.

The original infraction that Ryan was accused of was that Rose paid for the ticket and not the AAU team, an AAU team which Rose started and ran. It was a technicality because it came from Roses account and not from the AAU account. I would bet Rose didn't know the difference and, at least in this instance it was an honest mistake.

A lot of people are "guilty" of not reading legalistic or technical writings and that doesn't mean they are bad or lazy. It means that not everyone is tuned into this facet of life. We are in the age of specialization and have been in this age for sometime because of the complexity of our time period. So I can't agree with you on this one.

 

[Scalito]

As far as due process, the NCAA got reamed by the US Supreme Court over that very issue in the Tarkanian case. They have due process in these cases.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NCAA, and against the Tark, but I'm sure the rest of your "serious comment" is much more spot on.

 

[freescooter]

Spartacus,
You are correct Sir. the court did back the NCAA, but pretty much on a limited issue of whether the NCAA was a "state actor". I twas a faily long and convoluted case/series of cases and I was incorrect in tryin gto give a quick shorthand. The court didn't though overturn the State requirement that UNLV follow due process in its dealing with Tark so the University, Tark and the NCAA needed to come to an agreement. I t was actually Congress, some congressional subcommittee, that issued the damning report on the NCAA's investigative process. The Tark also went back to the Nevada Courts and sued and the NCAA ultimately settled and agreed to change its investigative policies and lift any sanctions against him and pay him $2.5 million. While they didn't admit harassment officially, Cedric Dempsey the NCAA Executive director at the time essentailly admitted that the NCAA had no legs to stand on.

 

[caw]

According to this logic, universities should do away with compliance offices and the coaches should know and follow all the rules and not have to consult this department. And there should be no need for lawyers because we can all read books about the law. Maybe this this last statement has a bit of exaggeration in it. But expecting 16 - 18 year olds to memorize an NCAA compliance book is a stretch in my opinion.

The original infraction that Ryan was accused of was that Rose paid for the ticket and not the AAU team, an AAU team which Rose started and ran. It was a technicality because it came from Roses account and not from the AAU account. I would bet Rose didn't know the difference and, at least in this instance it was an honest mistake.

A lot of people are "guilty" of not reading legalistic or technical writings and that doesn't mean they are bad or lazy. It means that not everyone is tuned into this facet of life. We are in the age of specialization and have been in this age for sometime because of the complexity of our time period. So I can't agree with you on this one.

If true, I still have no idea why he was given the six game ban. If his coach is handing him a ticket saying, "take this ticket to join the team in city to play in YYY tournament", how is that a problem? Does this mean if Rose had paid for said flight with the team credit card/account, it would have been OK? This seems like more of a stupid mistake than anything else and not something that should be a violation. If you were talking about some booster from some college, or some agent or runner or whatever then sure, but if it can be shown the ticket was a regular ticket to a basketball event his entire team went to and paid for by his coach, why was that even an issue? I also fail to see the benefit to anyone in this situation. Boatright really doesn't benefit (he was going to go the tournament either way), UConn didn't benefit, the AAU coach didn't benefit (he lost money from his personal account).

More to the point, how, in said situation, would Boatright know how his coach had paid for the ticket? If his coach had been paying for tickets to go to tournaments/games all over the country and one time he paid with the wrong account? Why would Boatright know? Should he have asked his coach, "are you paying with your credit card or the teams?" It just seems a bit silly, but it is the NCAA's. Again assuming that is what happened.

Not knowing what the accusation is this time, I imagine Boatright did do something outside the letter of the NCAA rules. The question is, is it something like the above case or something more planned out and sleazy?

 

[Scalito]

Spartacus,
You are correct Sir. the court did back the NCAA, but pretty much on a limited issue of whether the NCAA was a "state actor". I twas a faily long and convoluted case/series of cases and I was incorrect in tryin gto give a quick shorthand. The court didn't though overturn the State requirement that UNLV follow due process in its dealing with Tark so the University, Tark and the NCAA needed to come to an agreement.

The "limited issue" of whether the NCAA is a state actor is a very important issue. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA is not a state actor, it cannot be sued for failing to provide due process. Ever.

 

[freescooter]

The "limited issue" of whether the NCAA is a state actor is a very important issue. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA is not a state actor, it cannot be sued for failing to provide due process. Ever.

I don't disagree but I'm also not sure how that applies to this situation, or to the fact aht the NCAA actually changed its practice after that suit and a congressional investigation to insure that there was due process. It dropped, for example, its right to rely on heresay evidence in reaching its decisions. And it no longer provides carries out either its deliberation or its reviews in secret. And it notifies the subjects ofits investigations that it is undertaking them and provides them with an opportunity to provide responses. Now none of that was required by the Court, but due to the negative publicity and the outside Congressional findings, which wouldn't have happened with the Tarkanian case (the subcommittee chair or maybe the ranking member I'm not sure which, was from Nevada I believe findings. And while the NCAA did doge a bullet with the court's ruling, it had little practical impact in that the original Nevada Court decision that the University failed to comply with due process in firing Tarkanian remained in effect and ultimately the NCAA, Tark and the University ended up negotiating a settlement there too which included allowing UNLV to play in the tournament in a year where they were to be banned. Tarkanian later sued the NCAA for harrassment and defimation, I believe, and the NCAA settled. their lawyer was quoted after the settlement as saying they ran 7 mock juries and in everyone they lost.

 

[freescooter]

If true, I still have no idea why he was given the six game ban. If his coach is handing him a ticket saying, "take this ticket to join the team in city to play in YYY tournament", how is that a problem? Does this mean if Rose had paid for said flight with the team credit card/account, it would have been OK? This seems like more of a stupid mistake than anything else and not something that should be a violation. If you were talking about some booster from some college, or some agent or runner or whatever then sure, but if it can be shown the ticket was a regular ticket to a basketball event his entire team went to and paid for by his coach, why was that even an issue? I also fail to see the benefit to anyone in this situation. Boatright really doesn't benefit (he was going to go the tournament either way), UConn didn't benefit, the AAU coach didn't benefit (he lost money from his personal account).

More to the point, how, in said situation, would Boatright know how his coach had paid for the ticket? If his coach had been paying for tickets to go to tournaments/games all over the country and one time he paid with the wrong account? Why would Boatright know? Should he have asked his coach, "are you paying with your credit card or the teams?" It just seems a bit silly, but it is the NCAA's. Again assuming that is what happened.

Not knowing what the accusation is this time, I imagine Boatright did do something outside the letter of the NCAA rules. The question is, is it something like the above case or something more planned out and sleazy?

I think that scenario was pretty unlikely. I suppose anything is possible, but I really have a hard time believing that even the NCAA would find that to be a problem...or for that matter that a former boyfriend of his mother would even knowthose details. I mean, that stuff happens all the time. I just did it, paid for a business expense with the wrong credit card. I'll just note the file and get reimbursed. I won't discuss it with the boyfriend of the mother of the kid who makes copies.

 

[Chief00]

This whole thread misses the bigger picture - you have a very willing partner on both sides - the snitch and the NCAA - Bottom-line - they are trying to bring our program down. That's what all this is about - it ain't about Boatshow.