Boat Freed

[champs99and04]

Yes.

Specifically, Chief's cries to Occupy the NCAA Headquarters with burning pitchforks.

In that case, I'm more than willing to join him. Just tell me the adress.

 

[DogMania]

Uconn needs to be careful recruiting guys with questionable past. We already have enough things to worry about with our past penalties. It really sounds shady with the car payments and all and it is bad UCONN's name had to get dragged into this. Oh well at least RB is back and maybe we can get this season back on track.

Come on! How would UConn being to investigate every recruit they go after? They've been more careful lately to recruit solid character kids. In this case, they were going hard after Hinds but jumped all over RB when he pulled his WVU verbal off the table.

Unfortuntely it's always going to be some risk when recruiting kids who's families struggle financially since there are far too many out there are more than willing to help them out hoping to cash in later. I'm not saying that's the case here. I don't know what the motives are behind the two parties who gave helped out RB and his mom, or as the NCAA puts it, impropper benfits. I wonder if it's realy impropper if these people also help out kids who aren't prospective student athletes.

With immunity on the table at least this is the end of this.

 

[ctchamps]

My summary: There were questionable payments made to a college players mom from a source that was inappropriate. Said mom confided this with a boyfriend. Said boyfriend got bounced but somehow got records of payments before getting completely tossed. Said boyfriend vindictively reports infractions to NCAA and RB is investigated. UConn decides to keep RB from playing while the NCAA gathers records and does its investigation. The extent of the infractions was partially determined and an agreement to repay the infractions was made. RB gets to play but the NCAA requested more documents prior to his reinstatement. RB's mom hires an attorney and through the attorney hands over bank statements to the NCAA.

The NCAA examines the bank statements and determines that further infractions were committed by Ryan's mom, but Ryan was the least culpable actor in this. They offer him immunity as long as he and his mom cooperate in some unspecified pursuit of allegations. They delay allowing RB to play until they can confirm, after receiving additional records, that RB (who was not culpable in these payments) and his mom had demonstrated cooperation.

Some Commentary: RB was not involved in any further activities besides the money he received from someone (presumably Rose) to get to an AAU game. He served the penalty for this infraction. However in this latest action, the NCAA essentially resorted to extortion with RB's mom to get records for some further action they have in mind (not stated). They frightened her into getting more information, but none of this information was indicative of involving Ryan. They worded the released document that UConn made the decision to hold Ryan the second time.

The university had no choice but to take the most cautious approach. Kudos to the compliance department for the way the handled this affair and minimized the peripheral damage to the program and the university. It is a breath of fresh air from the recent past.

The NCAA was justified in investigating this matter. They might even be justified in the way they approached the investigation. But based on the released document and without more details or questions answered why they did not give RB an immediate release in the second set of infractions, I can only conclude that the NCAA acted heavy handed in this manner and would be reprimanded if this behavior occurred in the judicial system.

 

[jleves]

My summary: There were questionable payments made to a college players mom from a source that was inappropriate. Said mom confided this with a boyfriend. Said boyfriend got bounced but somehow got records of payments before getting completely tossed. Said boyfriend vindictively reports infractions to NCAA and RB is investigated. UConn decides to keep RB from playing while the NCAA gathers records and does its investigation. The extent of the infractions was partially determined and an agreement to repay the infractions was made. RB gets to play but the NCAA requested more documents prior to his reinstatement. RB's mom hires an attorney and through the attorney hands over bank statements to the NCAA.

The NCAA examines the bank statements and determines that further infractions were committed by Ryan's mom, but Ryan was the least culpable actor in this. They offer him immunity as long as he and his mom cooperate in some unspecified pursuit of allegations. They delay allowing RB to play until they can confirm, after receiving additional records, that RB (who was not culpable in these payments) and his mom had demonstrated cooperation.

Some Commentary: RB was not involved in any further activities besides the money he received from someone (presumably Rose) to get to an AAU game. He served the penalty for this infraction. However in this latest action, the NCAA essentially resorted to extortion with RB's mom to get records for some further action they have in mind (not stated). They frightened her into getting more information, but none of this information was indicative of involving Ryan. They worded the released document that UConn made the decision to hold Ryan the second time.

The university had no choice but to take the most cautious approach. Kudos to the compliance department for the way the handled this affair and minimized the peripheral damage to the program and the university. It is a breath of fresh air from the recent past.

The NCAA was justified in investigating this matter. They might even be justified in the way they approached the investigation. But based on the released document and without more details or questions answered why they did not give RB an immediate release in the second set of infractions, I can only conclude that the NCAA acted heavy handed in this manner and would be reprimanded if this behavior occurred in the judicial system.

Funny - I posted almost the same thoughts in another thread. I did leave out the part where the NCAA actually appears to have handled this very well. I'm glad I wasn't on the NCAA is tyring to ruin Boatright and UConn bandwagon.

Actually, it's a pretty horrible position the NCAA is in. If an agent or someone with influence contacts a players family who really needs money, and offers stuff in hopes that the family can apply future direction to a kid - even if he doesn't know about the benefits, what do they do? The kid didn't do anything wrong. But do you really want scenarios like Cam's father offering his services or agents contacting single mothers with financial problems? It's a no win situation for the NCAA.

 

[ctchamps]

Funny - I posted almost the same thoughts in another thread. I did leave out the part where the NCAA actually appears to have handled this very well. I'm glad I wasn't on the NCAA is tyring to ruin Boatright and UConn bandwagon.

Actually, it's a pretty horrible position the NCAA is in. If an agent or someone with influence contacts a players family who really needs money, and offers stuff in hopes that the family can apply future direction to a kid - even if he doesn't know about the benefits, what do they do? The kid didn't do anything wrong. But do you really want scenarios like Cam's father offering his services or agents contacting single mothers with financial problems? It's a no win situation for the NCAA.

The NCAA is in a bind. They lack the ability to punish the perpetrators of these acts - sleazy agents, AAU coaches, hangers on, boosters, and so on. So they resort to threatening only part of the equation. Of course the players and coaches are not innocent. But the system won't change without some outside body determining that the outside influences in these matters deserves punishment.

I didn't join the bandwagon because there was smoke, so there must have been fire. But I don't like the way the NCAA conducts themselves over these matters. They don't disclose everything they examine. They don't have to. So that gives them a lot of leeway in the way they can conduct themselves.

In this RB situation, the source told them about the car payments. They were waiting for Ryan's mom to get them the evidence to support the claim. But they knew in advance that Ryan was innocent of those payments. They put the squeeze on UConn and Ryan's mom to ensure she would comply by using her son as the leverage in these matters. They are justified in trying to keep these matters of sleazy people from getting involved in college players, but the methods they employed in this situation were similar to extortion imo.

 

[huskyharry]

Welcome back Boatshow! Time to make up for lost time and come out on fire tomorrow. Go Huskies, beat the Irish!