By the letter of the law, the NCAA is right on Boatright....

[Gregory Koch]

There's no doubt in my mind what Boatright's mom did was against the rules, and that, by rule, Boatright should be declared ineligible. However, to quote Charles Dickens, "the law is an ass". The fact that the NCAA considers it identical whether Boatright's mom took $100 from a friend who happens to be an AAU coach or $100,000 from a sleazy agent is atrocious. And look at Cam Newton. His dad tried to sell him to schools for $100,000. Had he actually gotten a school to pay him $100,000 (or even $1), Newton would have been permanently ineligible. Even if he really didn't know about it. And Boatright's mom wasn't trying to sell her son to a school, she was just trying to see the school. Also, if the NCAA wants its student-athletes to be students first, there is no reason to not cover parents' travel expenses. After all, if Boatright were a normal student applying to UConn, his mom would have come with him. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe Boatright chose us for our fancy chemistry building, but since the NCAA is claiming the players are real students, they can't just treat them like real students when it suits them best. You can't say "they're real students, but we're not going to things that any real student would do". Sort of like how Nebraska football got put on probation for paying for student-athletes "optional" textbooks. I've taken enough courses to know that 90% of the time, any real student should buy the optional textbooks. Of course, Nebraska football players aren't real students, but if you're going to claim they are....


I don't think anyone can deny Boatright's mom broke the NCAA rules, and I don't think anyone can deny that by the letter of the law Boatright should be permanently ineligible. But the NCAA rules are stupid. Look at this article Rick Reilly wrote on Utah basketball a few years ago. Among the violations that got them in trouble:

1. Buying Keith Van Horn dinner to console him after his father died. At 3 AM. Coach Rick Majerus, being a decent human being, did not demand Van Horn pay him back. Alas, he should have....
2. Buying a bagel for a player who came to Majerus concerned about his brother's suicide attempt. Majerus is a nice guy (who likes to eat), so he figured it would be easier on the kid if they went to get something to eat. But the NCAA nailed him on it.
3. Going out for pizza with a player instead of having it delivered, sent up by room service, carried back to his room, or served at Majerus's house. And by the way, had Majerus served the player caviar and truffles at home, that would be ok, as long as it only happened occasionally. That is if he didn't live in a hotel year-round.

And sooner or later, some parent who totally wants to screw up their kid's career will do so. And it would be rather easy to do, and the NCAA would ruin the kid who did nothing wrong. For the record, anyone who is an alumni of an NCAA institution is a "representative" of that school's athletic department. So, technically, if Jeremy Lamb's mom asks a UConn alum for a quarter to buy a newspaper with her son's picture on it, and the alum gives it to her, Lamb could be banned for life. Would the NCAA do it? Well, if they found out, it wouldn't surprise me. How they'd catch that, I don't know. But if they did, then Lamb would be in trouble.

Or, say I'm a high school student-athlete. If I accept money or gifts from anyone who graduated from an NCAA institution who I don't have a pre-existing relationship with, then technically I'm ineligible. How they'd catch something that petty, I don't know.

Then again, a malicious alum could easily destroy the career of anyone they wanted. But if they self-reported it, they would probably fail. So it would take a conspiracy of sorts, which I hope we don't see. But would the NCAA ban the player? Probably.

And by the letter of the law, they would be right. And the law is an ass.

 

[Walker11]

I don't disagree that his mother broke the law. The issue is the selective enforcement of the laws, the processes which are allowed in investigating these violations, and the absurdity of the laws themselves.

 

[CL82]

You'd both be wrong. No law was broken.

 

[Gregory Koch]

I don't disagree that his mother broke the law. The issue is the selective enforcement of the laws, the processes which are allowed in investigating these violations, and the absurdity of the laws themselves.

Agreed. That's my point. And "letter of the law" is a figure of speech. Plus Dickens didn't say "the rules is an ass", did he? I wasn't saying Boatright committed a crime. But he did (technically) violate NCAA policy.

 

[caw]

Agreed. That's my point. And "letter of the law" is a figure of speech. Plus Dickens didn't say "the rules is an ass", did he? I wasn't saying Boatright committed a crime. But he did (technically) violate NCAA policy.

Did he? His mom may have (though I think there is some grey area with friends with longstanding relationships) but I haven't seen anything where he knowingly took a dime for the plane trip.

As to the second allegation, which according to the NYT's his mother claims she accepted money from friends for Christmas presents. In this instance, Ryan Boatright did not do anything. Furthermore, if what she says is the case, she was not benefiting due to Ryan's athletic performance but rather because friends were being nice and trying to help her out. The "law" or NCAA rules prohibit benefiting because of athletic ability it says nothing about receiving charity from friends and loved ones. Again I am assuming she is being honest.

In the Utah cases you mention everyone involved received "benefits" due solely because of their athletic standing from someone connected with the athletic department (coach).

In the case of Cam Newton (which is the most similar) the parent would have received benefits from the booster/coach/school recruiting Cam which differs greatly with whom Ryan Boatright's mom received benefits for the airplane (which was tied to Boatright's athletic ability) and probably why Ryan only got a 6 game penalty whereas Cam would have gotten a much harsher penalty.

The NCAA was correct in suspending Boatright for the first 6 games (though the length may be a bit harsh all things considered). The NCAA may even be correct in looking into this situation now, but they better do a damn thorough job this time with the amount of time they are making him miss and if they are wrong and making UConn sit him out for nothing they better damn well explain themselves.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

You put a lot of effort into this argument therefore your diligence is respected.

It is important as an advocate to have the ability to articulate both sides of an issue. In other words wear multiple hats. That is what makes a great lawyer. You should be able to win your case regardless of who you are defending. In this case the NCAA or in the alternative Ryan Boatright.

Please make the counter argument to Elsa Cole.

http://www.superlawyers.com/indiana...ger/cc856816-d116-4b4d-9a02-c1745cae6a03.html

Best Wishes,
BlueDawG

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

The former interim GC Bearby a Notre Dame grad should have opened a nice door to Pendergast. Remy wasn't hired for his incredible skill set as a lawyer. Cole actually understood the issues and is a very pleasant person. Bearby that guy is something else. LOL

 

[Gregory Koch]

Did he? His mom may have (though I think there is some grey area with friends with longstanding relationships) but I haven't seen anything where he knowingly took a dime for the plane trip.

As to the second allegation, which according to the NYT's his mother claims she accepted money from friends for Christmas presents. In this instance, Ryan Boatright did not do anything. Furthermore, if what she says is the case, she was not benefiting due to Ryan's athletic performance but rather because friends were being nice and trying to help her out. The "law" or NCAA rules prohibit benefiting because of athletic ability it says nothing about receiving charity from friends and loved ones. Again I am assuming she is being honest.

In the Utah cases you mention everyone involved received "benefits" due solely because of their athletic standing from someone connected with the athletic department (coach).

In the case of Cam Newton (which is the most similar) the parent would have received benefits from the booster/coach/school recruiting Cam which differs greatly with whom Ryan Boatright's mom received benefits for the airplane (which was tied to Boatright's athletic ability) and probably why Ryan only got a 6 game penalty whereas Cam would have gotten a much harsher penalty.

The NCAA was correct in suspending Boatright for the first 6 games (though the length may be a bit harsh all things considered). The NCAA may even be correct in looking into this situation now, but they better do a damn thorough job this time with the amount of time they are making him miss and if they are wrong and making UConn sit him out for nothing they better damn well explain themselves.

Did he? His mom may have (though I think there is some grey area with friends with longstanding relationships) but I haven't seen anything where he knowingly took a dime for the plane trip.

As to the second allegation, which according to the NYT's his mother claims she accepted money from friends for Christmas presents. In this instance, Ryan Boatright did not do anything. Furthermore, if what she says is the case, she was not benefiting due to Ryan's athletic performance but rather because friends were being nice and trying to help her out. The "law" or NCAA rules prohibit benefiting because of athletic ability it says nothing about receiving charity from friends and loved ones. Again I am assuming she is being honest.

In the Utah cases you mention everyone involved received "benefits" due solely because of their athletic standing from someone connected with the athletic department (coach).

In the case of Cam Newton (which is the most similar) the parent would have received benefits from the booster/coach/school recruiting Cam which differs greatly with whom Ryan Boatright's mom received benefits for the airplane (which was tied to Boatright's athletic ability) and probably why Ryan only got a 6 game penalty whereas Cam would have gotten a much harsher penalty.

The NCAA was correct in suspending Boatright for the first 6 games (though the length may be a bit harsh all things considered). The NCAA may even be correct in looking into this situation now, but they better do a damn thorough job this time with the amount of time they are making him miss and if they are wrong and making UConn sit him out for nothing they better damn well explain themselves.

Technically, Boatright commited an NCAA violation because his mom took the money. As dumb as that is, it's reality. The issue was that Rose was an AAU coach. Which means Boatright and his family can't receive benefits from him. The friends exemption extends to most representatives of specific schools (i.e. alumni, season ticket holders), but it does not extend to AAU coaches. So therefore, I know it sounds stupid (and frankly it should), but because Boatright's mom took the money, Boatright broke a rule. And Boatright could very well get the same penalty Newton would have gotten. It's just that UConn itself will be punished a lot less than Auburn would have (or not at all) but Boatright could still be punished pretty severely. We won't have to forfeit any titles we win this year or get probation or a postseason ban (for this anyway) but that doesn't mean Boatright won't get in trouble.

And yes, these rules don't make sense. But they're the rules.

 

[caw]

Technically, Boatright commited an NCAA violation because his mom took the money. As dumb as that is, it's reality. The issue was that Rose was an AAU coach. Which means Boatright and his family can't receive benefits from him. The friends exemption extends to most representatives of specific schools (i.e. alumni, season ticket holders), but it does not extend to AAU coaches. So therefore, I know it sounds stupid (and frankly it should), but because Boatright's mom took the money, Boatright broke a rule. And Boatright could very well get the same penalty Newton would have gotten. It's just that UConn itself will be punished a lot less than Auburn would have (or not at all) but Boatright could still be punished pretty severely. We won't have to forfeit any titles we win this year or get probation or a postseason ban (for this anyway) but that doesn't mean Boatright won't get in trouble.

And yes, these rules don't make sense. But they're the rules.

I agree with the assessment that rules were broken in the case of the airplane tickets. The NCAA has already ruled on that infringement and thus the first 6 game suspension. That is done with.

I disagree that Ryan broke any rules in this case, his mother broke the rules. That may reflect on Ryan and he obviously is the one assumed guilty by the NCAA but he didn't break the rules (in the sense he didn't actually take the ticket) rather someone broke the rules for him. Obviously the NCAA says this affects his status and not his mom's :-p

The second part, well the NYT's article was too vague (it seems the NCAA doesn't believe/trust where the money/cash came from) to say any violation took part there. If the money came from old friends/church/etc. then it wouldn't be a violation. If it came from AAU/UConn/WVU/etc. it would. This is the part that could still haunt UConn/Boatright.

 

[Palatine]

Cam Newton's father broke rules, the NCAA ruled that neither Cam nor Auburn had to pay any penalty. The case was cleared up in 30 seconds.

How is this different?

 

[suzyq]

Cam Newton's father broke rules, the NCAA ruled that neither Cam nor Auburn had to pay any penalty. The case was cleared up in 30 seconds.

How is this different?

Only difference I see is that Ryan doesn't play football at an SEC school.

The thing that has both baffled and amused me in the Newton situation id is that as far as I know, Mississippi State was never sanctioned for offering him money. As I understand it, they reported Auburn because Mr. Newton turned their ( MSU) money down.

 

[willie99]

"permanently ineligible"? OMG

I think there's a lot of precedent that debunks that

 

[Kitaman]

Patience Patience Patience .................. please lets not speculate or jump to conclusions, this is serious business. There are two sides to every story.

 

[UCweCONN]

"permanently ineligible"? OMG

I think there's a lot of precedent that debunks that

+1 The only people ever ruled permanently ineligible are those who are found to have given up their amateur status by playing basketball for money on pro or semipro teams. All the cases I know involved foreign players. This is not the case for RB. Also, as someone else posted, RB was the 70th rated player. What are the top players getting on the side (and I don't mean their parents)? Maybe the NCAA should audit the bank records of the parents or guardians of every incoming college athlete?? (being sarcastic) I also think auditing someone's bank records without legal grounds should be illegal and blatantly discriminates against the poor.

 

[husky711]

Technically, Boatright commited an NCAA violation because his mom took the money. As dumb as that is, it's reality. The issue was that Rose was an AAU coach. Which means Boatright and his family can't receive benefits from him. The friends exemption extends to most representatives of specific schools (i.e. alumni, season ticket holders), but it does not extend to AAU coaches. So therefore, I know it sounds stupid (and frankly it should), but because Boatright's mom took the money, Boatright broke a rule. And Boatright could very well get the same penalty Newton would have gotten. It's just that UConn itself will be punished a lot less than Auburn would have (or not at all) but Boatright could still be punished pretty severely. We won't have to forfeit any titles we win this year or get probation or a postseason ban (for this anyway) but that doesn't mean Boatright won't get in trouble.

And yes, these rules don't make sense. But they're the rules.

You keep stating this as though it is fact that Boatright's mom received the money from Rose. I haven't seen a single report yet that has stated that. The reports stated that she received cash deposits in her account and the NCAA is skeptical as to where they came from. That is a very big difference, at this point in the investigation, unless I am missing a very recent update on the investigation.

Stop stating your assumptions as facts.. it's a bit obnoxious. By all means, you can say Boatright broke the rules with the plane ticket ordeal... but no one has any idea where the cash deposits came from. It very well could've been friends/family/church/etc... that type of gesture is not as out of the ordinary as people are making it out to be. If the NCAA finds proof that it came from Rose or another inappropriate source, then by all means you can say receiving the money was an NCAA violation. Until then, you are stating assumptions/opinions.. not facts.

 

[Gregory Koch]

You keep stating this as though it is fact that Boatright's mom received the money from Rose. I haven't seen a single report yet that has stated that. The reports stated that she received cash deposits in her account and the NCAA is skeptical as to where they came from. That is a very big difference, at this point in the investigation, unless I am missing a very recent update on the investigation.

Stop stating your assumptions as facts.. it's a bit obnoxious. By all means, you can say Boatright broke the rules with the plane ticket ordeal... but no one has any idea where the cash deposits came from. It very well could've been friends/family/church/etc... that type of gesture is not as out of the ordinary as people are making it out to be. If the NCAA finds proof that it came from Rose or another inappropriate source, then by all means you can say receiving the money was an NCAA violation. Until then, you are stating assumptions/opinions.. not facts.

I'm not saying anything about the cash deposits. It is a fact that RB's mom took money for the plane tickets. I haven't seen anyone deny it, they're all either "no comment" or "yes". I don't know about the cash deposits, and yes, anything there would be speculation. But he did break a rule with the plane tickets. The selective persecution of UConn is another issue.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

He was already punished for the plane ticket. That was the six game suspension. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[freescooter]

This seems like a pattern of behavior, so to speak, where she took money for plane fare, then money for Christmas gifts, maybe money for a car, who knows what else...you also have to wonder if the fact that the people involved in this, specifically Rose, have been in trouble with the NCAA in the past. Derrick bought his SAT and Reggie was involved in the Memphis scandal as well getting free travel and lodging from the basketball program while his brother played there. So this isn't like the people around Boatright were Mother Teresa and St Francis of Assisi. So if the NCAA gets word that something squirrely is going on, and finds that a guy with a questionable past was involved, they are going to look more closely than if it had involved, say Bob Hurley or someone else with a sterling rep.

 

[caw]

This seems like a pattern of behavior, so to speak, where she took money for plane fare, then money for Christmas gifts, maybe money for a car, who knows what else...you also have to wonder if the fact that the people involved in this, specifically Rose, have been in trouble with the NCAA in the past. Derrick bought his SAT and Reggie was involved in the Memphis scandal as well getting free travel and lodging from the basketball program while his brother played there. So this isn't like the people around Boatright were Mother Teresa and St Francis of Assisi. So if the NCAA gets word that something squirrely is going on, and finds that a guy with a questionable past was involved, they are going to look more closely than if it had involved, say Bob Hurley or someone else with a sterling rep.

I agree Reggie Rose/Derrick Rose have a checkered past with the NCAA's. That's not a hidden fact. I also think that them being involved is probably a reason the NCAA is looking closely into this situation.

I don't agree with the highlighted, as that is just rumor or according to the NYT's article the NCAA's reason for asking for her financial records (though not something they are pursuing) .

As to it being a pattern, I fail to see how this is a problem if the money is from friends/family (as she claims per the NYT's article)? If people are willing to give her money or lend her money simply because they are friends/family then there really isn't/shouldn't be a problem. The issue, it seems, is that the NCAA doesn't believe her claim, though the NYT's article fails to state a reason why they fail to believe her.

The plane ticket has been dealt with by the NCAA and really isn't an issue atm.

 

[prankster]

"By the letter of the law....." there likely isn't a single college student that can pass this test....

Most of us grew up in towns where tight communities meant that lots and lots of people were friends....and parents bought ice cream for a flock of kids after a little league game, or pizza after a basketball game, or something....

And anyone might have received a bit of a cash "leg up" from a relative or a family friend, when in need....or maybe an envelope with some cash for Christmas.....or graduation, or whatever....

And any of us might have gone on to go to college and maybe even play sports....

The NCAA has set themselves into the position where they can judge whether innocent behavior, undertaken years in advance of enrolling in college is punnishable., years later, once you come under their thumb

These are cases where the rules are written broadly enough so that almost no one could ever, categorically, prove that no violation had occurred....

And on top of that, the rules are applied and enforced in capricious and arbitrary fashion.

And they are applied by an organization that is simultaneously vindictive and above the law....as well as being in posession of a vast array of other, similarly broadly crafted, and broadly applicable "rules"...so that the colleges, students and parents all live in fear that they will be next....

Thus, the NCAA sets itself apart from and above any opportunity for legal challenge...

It's a sweet gig, sure to appeal to the closet fascist .....

 

[freescooter]

caw, I agree on the car thing. That is just a rumor at this point. But for reports of this to present it that Reggie Rose is just some long time family friend, without disclosing that both he and his brother were previously involved in sleazy dealings at Memphis is to me just slightly disingenuous. It is like saying that some guy is being investigated for bank robbery without disclosing that his friends are Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. And the reason the rules are written the way they are written with respect to parents should be pretty obvious, and all these references to the Auburn situation clearly show everybody gets it, they just don't think it shoudl apply to this case...the NCAA is trying to avoid situations like the Reggie Bush case that brought the hammer down on USC, or what is also alleged with Newton at Auburn. While the player didn't get direct benefits, clealry Bush's parents did. And I wouldn't be shocked if in a year or so the NCAA beats on Auburn too.

 

[husky711]

I'm not saying anything about the cash deposits. It is a fact that RB's mom took money for the plane tickets. I haven't seen anyone deny it, they're all either "no comment" or "yes". I don't know about the cash deposits, and yes, anything there would be speculation. But he did break a rule with the plane tickets. The selective persecution of UConn is another issue.

OK, now it makes more sense to me. Your line: "whether Boatright's mom took $100 from a friend who happens to be an AAU coach" in the OP made me believe you were referring to the current ongoing investigation. I was under the impression that Boatright's mom was given a plane ticket, not money for her to purchase a plane ticket. While one might say, "What's the difference?"... I honestly feel like there is a bit of a difference. If she was given cash, then it becomes a gray area as to whether she was being given money for Boatright's abilities, performance, etc. THAT could possibly be a legitimate investigation as to whether he could still be considered an amateur never paid to play the game.

However, if his mother was simply given a plane ticket to go watch her son in a tournament... in my opinion there's no question that the intention was NOT to reward Boatright (or his family) for his abilities, performance, etc. The intention was simply to allow her mother to join her son in traveling out of state for a tournament... not an act that should jeopardize his amateur status, warrant a 6-game suspension, and especially not an act that should result in permanent ineligibility (as you state should be the case "by the letter of the law"). A parent should be allowed to accompany and watch their 14-18 year old son play in a tournament during his high school years, and if they don't have the money to travel in order to do so then I see nothing wrong with assistance being provided by the coach/program. It's an act of kindness, not one of malice. Again, if his mother received CASH... then it's a gray area and permanent ineligibility could be a reasonable outcome depending on the results of the investigation.

Either way... this is all a giant headache to be honest. I'm sick of the NCAA and the fact that they conveniently take their sweet ass time with these investigations. Currently they've taken Boatright out of 9 games for us this season, that is a significant portion of the season... and honestly it is starting to seem like they are dragging their feet on purpose. I don't get why an investigation of this nature would take so long. Oh wait... I do know why, because they want to screw us as hard as possible.

 

[John Fryer]

You put a lot of effort into this argument therefore your diligence is respected.

It is important as an advocate to have the ability to articulate both sides of an issue. In other words wear multiple hats. That is what makes a great lawyer. You should be able to win your case regardless of who you are defending. In this case the NCAA or in the alternative Ryan Boatright.

Please make the counter argument to Elsa Cole.

http://www.superlawyers.com/indiana...ger/cc856816-d116-4b4d-9a02-c1745cae6a03.html

Best Wishes,
BlueDawG

Thank you for taking advantage of this very Teachable Moment!

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[John Fryer]

I agree with the assessment that rules were broken in the case of the airplane tickets. The NCAA has already ruled on that infringement and thus the first 6 game suspension. That is done with.

I disagree that Ryan broke any rules in this case, his mother broke the rules. That may reflect on Ryan and he obviously is the one assumed guilty by the NCAA but he didn't break the rules (in the sense he didn't actually take the ticket) rather someone broke the rules for him. Obviously the NCAA says this affects his status and not his mom's :-p

The second part, well the NYT's article was too vague (it seems the NCAA doesn't believe/trust where the money/cash came from) to say any violation took part there. If the money came from old friends/church/etc. then it wouldn't be a violation. If it came from AAU/UConn/WVU/etc. it would. This is the part that could still haunt UConn/Boatright.

It seems to me the NCAA might be involved in a serious attempt to cover its collective Asses!

If your suggestion that: " If the money came from old friends/church/etc. then it wouldn't be a violation. If it came from AAU/UConn/WVU/etc. it would." is spot-on, then the NCAA will have a very difficult time in explaining why they reopened Ryan's case.

For my part, I hope that you are correct.

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[caw]

It seems to me the NCAA might be involved in a serious attempt to cover its collective Asses!

If your suggestion that: " If the money came from old friends/church/etc. then it wouldn't be a violation. If it came from AAU/UConn/WVU/etc. it would." is spot-on, then the NCAA will have a very difficult time in explaining why they reopened Ryan's case.

For my part, I hope that you are correct.

Peace,

John Fryer

The NCAA is already covering it's ass by are not making Boatright sit out, but putting the onus on the college to decide if they want to tempt fate with a player that may or may not be ineligible, the NCAA can also always level a penalty retroactively based on the number of games Boatright has/will miss based on UConn withholding him and claim that was fair (regardless if they find anything).