Article on Boatright situation from Chicago Sun-Times

[uconnfan68]

Hold on a second. I'm certainly not crazy about RB being side-lined nor am I a fan of how the NCAA does things. But as of this moment, none have us have any idea what the real deal is regarding this recent suspension. If his hs coach is correct, there are 2 separate issues. First, it certainly sucks that it might be a vendetta thing, but we don't know if the coach is correct about the source. Was this coach a part of of RBs team when he made his various commitment decisions , particularly his first one as a Frosh? Second, regardless of the source, if there is substance to whatever the issue is regardless of the source, then there is possibly more to be concerned about regarding RB. I know it sucks, because the chances that other kids who have been involved in exactly the same sort of conduct will never be found out and punished is pretty great, kind of like the steroid thing in pro sports. The ones who get caught (in the case of the AAU junk that goes on, I am not necessarily blaming teenagers when I use the term "caught" as if they planned to break the rules) will always be the embarrassed ones and the ones to suffer consequences. The others can just hold their breath and thank their lucky stars that nobody has reported them.

Is this a vendetta by the NCAA or by certain people within the NCAA? I hope not, but if they actually receive information that reflects a violation, they have to do something about it. The obvious problem is that they impose suspensions before they have all of the supporting information if the issue comes up during the season. There is no way to make up for the lost time if the allegations prove empty.

Well, that part of the problem. The NCAA gets to decide who they destroy, and for what. None of us knows what he is accused of doing/being a part of, but we all know there are others that are in the same situation. Didn't hear about anything for OSU/Auburn, etc for any indiscretions in their investigations... why they even let the players continue to play. Now the focus on AAU issues? Every kid that plays AAU basketball should be investigated if it's an issue, not just Ryan.

 

[Danzz]

Coming, as it did, in the aftermath of a previous (and very recent) investigation of the same player/same circumstances....while the NCAA may, indeed, have been compelled to investigate....they were not compelled to suspend RB in advance of at least some rudimentary verification of the new accusations....

This shows that there is very little professionalism on the part of the NCAA, and a corresponding lack of confidence in their own abilities to conduct investigations....

I don't believe that the NCAA suspended Boatright, Uconn did as a precaution while the investigation happens.

 

[traitor71]

AAU basketball should be investigated

Fixed it for you, but hell we all know the AAU circuit is crooked as can be.

 

[cohenzone]

"Well, that part of the problem. The NCAA gets to decide who they destroy, and for what. None of us knows what he is accused of doing/being a part of, but we all know there are others that are in the same situation. Didn't hear about anything for OSU/Auburn, etc for any indiscretions in their investigations... why they even let the players continue to play. Now the focus on AAU issues? Every kid that plays AAU basketball should be investigated if it's an issue, not just Ryan."

Realistically, it is unlikely that the NCAA can possibly do a total background review of every activity of every college athlete, so they investigate what gets called to their attention. Having been in an enforcement role with the fed gov for a time, I can only say that you can't ignore info even if it is clear that the source has an axe to grind. Most entities that have enforcement roles respond to specific complaints when it isn't possible to do a 100% review of everything within their jurisdiction on a constant basis. Sometimes there is, in fact, a "hot" topic that comes under special scrutiny, and the gov uses audits ans special reviews, sometimes on a 100% basis of the perceived problem. But in any case, the remedies for violations should both be even-handed and reasonable regardless of who or what is being investigated or else the enforcing agency loses credibility and public confidence.. The NCAA seems to be all over the place on that score, which is a definite problem. I could be wrong, but I don't think the NCAA has any control over AAU other than that violations of NCAA rules related to things that happen on the AAU circuit obviously come into play. Regardless of how bad or good or how unbalanced the NCAA is, the AAU system needs its own house-cleaning if it is really interested in the kids in the system.

I'm not sure what I think about in-season suspensions based on allegations of not yet proved violations. My agency had a sanction that was imposed before all of the facts were in and I was never thrilled about defending it even though it was prt of my job. I am solidly in the innocent until proven guilty camp. In RB's case, he has already served a suspension and it will be grossly unfair to both him and the university if he has been forced to miss several more games and the allegations, whatever they are, prove unwarranted or not to warrant the length of deprivation. The NCAA has to move very quickly, and they don't seem structured to move fast on anything.

ETA: Even if RB is being held out by the university as a "precaution" and that RB has not technically been suspended by the NCAA yet, I doubt that UConn felt free to do what it wanted.

 

[SubbaBub]

The standard protocol for any school notified of potential violations of amateurism, is to sit the player. Knowingly playing someone who might be ineligible leads to bigger problems for the program, which Uconn doesn't need right now. It's wrong and not in keeping with the american sense of justice, but that's the NCAA in a nutshell.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[ctchamps]

The standard protocol for any school notified of potential violations of amateurism, is to sit the player. Knowingly playing someone who might be ineligible leads to bigger problems for the program, which Uconn doesn't need right now. It's wrong and not in keeping with the american sense of justice, but that's the NCAA in a nutshell.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Didn't OSU ask the NCAA if they could play the 10 players in the bowl game while they were being investigated and didn't the NCAA make a statement that said the players would be allowed to play? If IR this correctly, doesn't this imply a double standard over players like RB?

 

[HuskyTJMadison]

That fact this guy is doing this is dispicable, not just to Boatright but to the whole UConn program.

The way I read the Chicago newspaper story, though, is that this guy is behind the first investigation, as well. Which means he's got the dirt on the AAU program that Ryan was a part of it. I don't think there is a clean AAU program in the country — unintentional or not — because of the way the NCAA rulebook reads.

Boatright could have a very long career at Connecticut if this guy keeps letting things out one infraction at a time. Or, perhaps, a far too short career.

But I think that's why the NCAA is listening to him. I think he has the goods. Unfortunately.

 

[UCweCONN]

That fact this guy is doing this is dispicable, not just to Boatright but to the whole UConn program.

The way I read the Chicago newspaper story, though, is that this guy is behind the first investigation, as well. Which means he's got the dirt on the AAU program that Ryan was a part of it. I don't think there is a clean AAU program in the country — unintentional or not — because of the way the NCAA rulebook reads.

Boatright could have a very long career at Connecticut if this guy keeps letting things out one infraction at a time. Or, perhaps, a far too short career.

But I think that's why the NCAA is listening to him. I think he has the goods. Unfortunately.

If the guy 'has the goods' on Boatright and the AAU team, why wouldn't everything the guy knew have come out at the beginning? Boatright was suspended based on the initial investigation and then allowed to play so your argument makes no sense. On another note, I believe that every big time high school athlete (and college athlete for that matter) receives 'improper' benefits at some point in time, whether it be free meals at local restaurants etc. It isn't a matter of whether star athletes get 'improper' benefits, but which ones private individuals and the NCAA choose to go after.

 

[SubbaBub]

Ask Jim Tressel how that worked out.

Anyhow, this source sounds like a wannabe agent who thinks he should've been paid.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[UconnDon]

Prankster is right on with his comment! There should be at minimum sufficient creditable evidence available to the NCAA examining committee to establish a minimum probable cause to believe any player was at fault PRIOR to suspension. Too many people are affected, particularly fans, when someone is unilaterally suspended on a minimal complaint.
However, the silent method of the committee's investigation and lack of initial report leaves everyone mystified as to evidence supporting this suspension. Maybe, just maybe, this guy does indeed have creditable evidence. We shall see.

 

[ctchamps]

If the guy 'has the goods' on Boatright and the AAU team, why wouldn't everything the guy knew have come out at the beginning? Boatright was suspended based on the initial investigation and then allowed to play so your argument makes no sense. On another note, I believe that every big time high school athlete (and college athlete for that matter) receives 'improper' benefits at some point in time, whether it be free meals at local restaurants etc. It isn't a matter of whether star athletes get 'improper' benefits, but which ones private individuals and the NCAA choose to go after.

I guess this is like watching one of our fellow drivers get pulled over for speeding knowing that the 100 cars before him and the 100 cars following him were also speeding. It is a luck of the draw thing. Who knows. But upstater pointed out to a major set of improprieties by two brothers who made coaches pay to get recruits and how these two brothers hired one of the prior NCAA presidents. If his contention is true the whole NCAA thing is a farce.

 

[freescooter]

"Well, that part of the problem. The NCAA gets to decide who they destroy, and for what. None of us knows what he is accused of doing/being a part of, but we all know there are others that are in the same situation. Didn't hear about anything for OSU/Auburn, etc for any indiscretions in their investigations... why they even let the players continue to play. Now the focus on AAU issues? Every kid that plays AAU basketball should be investigated if it's an issue, not just Ryan."

Realistically, it is unlikely that the NCAA can possibly do a total background review of every activity of every college athlete, so they investigate what gets called to their attention. Having been in an enforcement role with the fed gov for a time, I can only say that you can't ignore info even if it is clear that the source has an axe to grind. Most entities that have enforcement roles respond to specific complaints when it isn't possible to do a 100% review of everything within their jurisdiction on a constant basis. Sometimes there is, in fact, a "hot" topic that comes under special scrutiny, and the gov uses audits ans special reviews, sometimes on a 100% basis of the perceived problem. But in any case, the remedies for violations should both be even-handed and reasonable regardless of who or what is being investigated or else the enforcing agency loses credibility and public confidence.. The NCAA seems to be all over the place on that score, which is a definite problem. I could be wrong, but I don't think the NCAA has any control over AAU other than that violations of NCAA rules related to things that happen on the AAU circuit obviously come into play. Regardless of how bad or good or how unbalanced the NCAA is, the AAU system needs its own house-cleaning if it is really interested in the kids in the system.

I'm not sure what I think about in-season suspensions based on allegations of not yet proved violations. My agency had a sanction that was imposed before all of the facts were in and I was never thrilled about defending it even though it was prt of my job. I am solidly in the innocent until proven guilty camp. In RB's case, he has already served a suspension and it will be grossly unfair to both him and the university if he has been forced to miss several more games and the allegations, whatever they are, prove unwarranted or not to warrant the length of deprivation. The NCAA has to move very quickly, and they don't seem structured to move fast on anything.

ETA: Even if RB is being held out by the university as a "precaution" and that RB has not technically been suspended by the NCAA yet, I doubt that UConn felt free to do what it wanted.

That is a really good explanation of the situation, I think. There are thousnads of college athletes and the NCAA simply can't carry out detailed investigations on all of them. I think they occassionally do more detailed reviews here and there. But when somebody brings forward an allegation, they really have to at least look into it. Just as any enforcement agency does. I briefly ran a public regulartory agency, too as an interim director. There was always an issue about 'anonmous complaints" and how they would get handled. Our position was that they needed to be investigated, while a previous adminsitration took the position that they only should be if there was clear and obvious evidence. For what its worth, it was a job I was happy to pass on to a fulltime director when he was hired. but I was of the opinion, as was my boss, that if we were made aware of a possible violation, our job was to investigate the violation regardless of the source of the allegation. Because it is still a violation whether it is brought to you by an inspector or by a disgruntled ex-employee, or by a former boyfirend or by an anonomous source.

As far as the question of "innocent until proven guilty" I'm a bit sympathetic to that, too. In my regulatory job, it was a bit different since if something was done wrong in the early stages, it could well have adverse consequences for the whole undertaking, so in most cases we stopped people from proceeding until we go the facts. Think of it as building a bridge, where if there was an allegation that the foundation was poured incorrectly, that was a problem so you wouldn't want to allow the builder to keep going with the superstructure. In the case of a basketball team, I'd say you might want to be a little more lenient. Boatright, while an important piece of the puzzle, isn't UCONN's make or break guy. On the other hand, suppose the allegations had involved Kemba last season. It would have been unfair to others to allow him to play if he was ineligible, and likely would have changed not just UCONN's season, but the entire NCAA tournament, and you really can't make suspension decisons based on whether the player is good, very good or a benchwarmer. Finally, the AAU system is a sewer. Absolute slime with almost no supervision. The only real solution for the NCAA is to declare that AAU automatically makes you ineligible for your first year or some similar situation. But like the NBA 19 year old rule, they would rather wring their hands and say woe is me than actually stand up and take action to deal with it.

 

[UCweCONN]

That is a really good explanation of the situation, I think. There are thousnads of college athletes and the NCAA simply can't carry out detailed investigations on all of them. I think they occassionally do more detailed reviews here and there. But when somebody brings forward an allegation, they really have to at least look into it. Just as any enforcement agency does. I briefly ran a public regulartory agency, too as an interim director. There was always an issue about 'anonmous complaints" and how they would get handled. Our position was that they needed to be investigated, while a previous adminsitration took the position that they only should be if there was clear and obvious evidence. For what its worth, it was a job I was happy to pass on to a fulltime director when he was hired. but I was of the opinion, as was my boss, that if we were made aware of a possible violation, our job was to investigate the violation regardless of the source of the allegation. Because it is still a violation whether it is brought to you by an inspector or by a disgruntled ex-employee, or by a former boyfirend or by an anonomous source.

As far as the question of "innocent until proven guilty" I'm a bit sympathetic to that, too. In my regulatory job, it was a bit different since if something was done wrong in the early stages, it could well have adverse consequences for the whole undertaking, so in most cases we stopped people from proceeding until we go the facts. Think of it as building a bridge, where if there was an allegation that the foundation was poured incorrectly, that was a problem so you wouldn't want to allow the builder to keep going with the superstructure. In the case of a basketball team, I'd say you might want to be a little more lenient. Boatright, while an important piece of the puzzle, isn't UCONN's make or break guy. On the other hand, suppose the allegations had involved Kemba last season. It would have been unfair to others to allow him to play if he was ineligible, and likely would have changed not just UCONN's season, but the entire NCAA tournament, and you really can't make suspension decisons based on whether the player is good, very good or a benchwarmer. Finally, the AAU system is a sewer. Absolute slime with almost no supervision. The only real solution for the NCAA is to declare that AAU automatically makes you ineligible for your first year or some similar situation. But like the NBA 19 year old rule, they would rather wring their hands and say woe is me than actually stand up and take action to deal with it.

Basketball and soccer depend on AAU and premier programs respectively. I have been involved in coaching soccer and have talked to pro and college coaches and they told me that you can be the star of your high school team but if you don't play on a top premier team, you will NEVER get recruited by a top college. The same applies to AAU basketball. Coaches just don't have time to go to these little gyms all over the place looking at high school players against weak competition. They rely on these AAU tournaments to help them focus on the top talent and see players play high level competition. In premier soccer, the national; organization that regulates premier teams in the US just passed a ruling this Fall that if players want to play premier soccer, they aren't allowed to play on their high school teams. I expect AAU basketball will go there as well before too long.

The college coaches perpetuated this situation and simply the idea of making kids who play AAU ineligible will never happen.

 

[cohenzone]

"Basketball and soccer depend on AAU and premier programs respectively. I have been involved in coaching soccer and have talked to pro and college coaches and they told me that you can be the star of your high school team but if you don't play on a top premier team, you will NEVER get recruited by a top college. The same applies to AAU basketball. Coaches just don't have time to go to these little gyms all over the place looking at high school players against weak competition. They rely on these AAU tournaments to help them focus on the top talent and see players play high level competition. In premier soccer, the national; organization that regulates premier teams in the US just passed a ruling this Fall that if players want to play premier soccer, they aren't allowed to play on their high school teams. I expect AAU basketball will go there as well before too long.

The college coaches perpetuated this situation and simply the idea of making kids who play AAU ineligible will never happen."

And that is what is wrong in the world of amateur athletics. The assumption is that the college coaches need to see all of the top talent in one place, because if they don't, how will they possibly know that this kid or that can make his team a championship contender. Big money all too often screws up everything given the chance. Geez, there was a day when AAU ball didn't exist and even stellar athletes had to work full time summer jobs. The college coaches didn't jet all over the country to recruit and somehow, the game was still interesting, empires like UCLA during the 1960s were an aberration even among very successful programs. But the money pie is way too enticing and the pay for successful D1 coaches too high, certainly in hoops. Funny that in the simpler days, coaches managed on small recruiting budgets and had to go to small gyms or dusty soccer fields to try and make some evaluations. But. oh well, Go Huskies.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The NCAA must get hundreds of "tips" about various programs every week. Angry fans of rivals, players' ex-girlfriends, bettors who lost on a game, wannabe agents who didn't get their man, etc. There are lots of crackpots with an axe to grind, and the vast majority are probably filed away unless there is some corroboration. So why investigate Boatright? Either there is some actual evidence, or this is a vendetta. We will find out which.

 

[freescooter]

"Basketball and soccer depend on AAU and premier programs respectively. I have been involved in coaching soccer and have talked to pro and college coaches and they told me that you can be the star of your high school team but if you don't play on a top premier team, you will NEVER get recruited by a top college. The same applies to AAU basketball. Coaches just don't have time to go to these little gyms all over the place looking at high school players against weak competition. They rely on these AAU tournaments to help them focus on the top talent and see players play high level competition. In premier soccer, the national; organization that regulates premier teams in the US just passed a ruling this Fall that if players want to play premier soccer, they aren't allowed to play on their high school teams. I expect AAU basketball will go there as well before too long.

The college coaches perpetuated this situation and simply the idea of making kids who play AAU ineligible will never happen."

And that is what is wrong in the world of amateur athletics. The assumption is that the college coaches need to see all of the top talent in one place, because if they don't, how will they possibly know that this kid or that can make his team a championship contender. Big money all too often screws up everything given the chance. Geez, there was a day when AAU ball didn't exist and even stellar athletes had to work full time summer jobs. The college coaches didn't jet all over the country to recruit and somehow, the game was still interesting, empires like UCLA during the 1960s were an aberration even among very successful programs. But the money pie is way too enticing and the pay for successful D1 coaches too high, certainly in hoops. Funny that in the simpler days, coaches managed on small recruiting budgets and had to go to small gyms or dusty soccer fields to try and make some evaluations. But. oh well, Go Huskies.

I don't disagree with the conclusion that the NCAA will never do anything about it. Other than moan and groan. The current AAU/Premeir system is relatively recent and as cohenzone notes, in the "old days" coaches somehow managed to put together good competetive teams, and at least some coaches I've spoken to in soccer argue that the old players were actually better coached in the fundamentals. the current system is run to showcase individual talent. I have little doubt that basketball is very much the same. If football coaches can show up at high school games in ButtF$%k Texas, and various other coaches can travel to all sorts of venues, I'm not sure I feel bad about a basketball coach not being able to go on a recruiting trip to some AAU tourney in Las Vegas. But as I said, in my original post, the NCAA would much rather whine about the problem than actually do something about it. Just the same as with the NBA draft rules. Bot of these matters could be addressed and addressed pretty easily, but it would require the NCAA to step up and confront the problem and confront its own coaches and their allies. Never ever going to happen.