question on Boat

[storrsbred1]

If the NCAA continues to not make a decision so that UConn feels compelled to continue to sit him and it runs into the post season, what are the possibilities of him redshirting, if any, or is it too late for that?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

He's played too many games to redshirt. Not to mention that it would be the NCAA who would have to grant him the extra year. No chance.

 

[caw]

The NCAA has done a great job of protecting itself in this case. They don't have to recognize they are the driving force behind him sitting because they can easily justify that UConn is actually the entity making Boatright sit. The NCAA will never give him a redshirt.

In the end if they don't find something, they can just send UConn a letter saying he has been cleared and is no longer being investigated in which case it's UConn's fault he sat. If they do find something small they can say he has to sit out X number of games, which may (probably) just happens to be the number of games he has already missed. Finally, if they find something big, they can say he has to miss the rest of the year+.

Fortunately, it is near impossible for the NCAA to vacate any wins UConn had with Boatright, as UConn pulled Boatright when they were informed of current investigation.

UConn is stuck with not playing him for fear of the NCAA finding something which would make Boatright ineligible. In this case, UConn has disregarded a warning by the NCAA that the NCAA is investigating the eligibility of one of their players making the games won while playing said ineligible player possibly forfeit and further sanctions possible. Some schools might say "f it, let's play him". UConn is not in a situation where it can afford to go and do that because it is already on probation. I would hate to think of what could happen to UConn if they attempted that and he was ineligible.

Memphis tried to get around this by playing Derrick Rose after they found out he was ineligible and subsequently had that whole season vacated and the team put on 3 years of probation. Theoretically, I feel they should have only had the games after they found out vacated because of his invalid test score. The NCAA also reasoned that because Reggie Rose traveled with the team on Memphis' dime that Derrick Rose was ineligible the entire season.

UConn should not and will not play Boatright until the NCAA says he is clear to play. This is the correct and only logical course of action by UConn.

 

[Fishy]

Rose was actually declared ineligible because his standardized test scores were invalidated - Memphis got whacked because of his brother's frequent flier issues.

Two interesting (to me) notes...

We always talk about Duke never having to answer for Cory Maggette's issues. A lot of schools suffered from Myron Piggie fallout, but Duke skated. Ohio State, however, had to vacate their 1999 FF appearance.

Memphis has been to the NCAA tournament 22 times. They've had to vacate six of those appearances. File that under "Reasons Why the Big East Won't Invite Memphis".

 

[caw]

The wins were vacated due to Rose's invalid test score, this was pointed out directly in the NCAA news release. The probation is not directly attributed to the travel or the invalid test scores.


http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2009/Division I/memphis+penalties+include+vacation+of+wins+in+2007-08_08_20_09_ncaa_news.html

I did word that sentence poorly though. I should have said, "after they found out his eligibility was in question" not "after he was ineligible".

 

[Fishy]

The probation resulted from the 'failure to monitor' in the instance of Rose's brother receiving the ~$2,000 in impermissible benefits. The release is actually surprisingly poorly written as you almost have to gain that through inference.

One thing that shines through is the committee's irritation with Memphis. Also, note that Paul Dee was one of the committee members..boy, he was sitting on his own time bomb, wasn't he?

 

[Wolferowski]

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2012/01/27/sports/doc4f22ca1da72d2664747574.txt


just saw this

 

[huskymagic]

this is bull and i don't care what the rationale they give for it.

 

[EROCK CONN]

So the NCAA basically knows that Cecil Newton recieved a substantial sum (approx 150k) for his to sign with a certain school.
Since the NCAA can't prove that Cam knew anything about it he wasn't punished.
So by that logic, if Ryan doesn't know anything about what his mother recieved then he should be good to go. I have a difficult time believing, actually I dont believe the NCAA has any proof Ryan knew anything about it.

The witchhunt continues.

 

[huskyjawz]

So the NCAA basically knows that Cecil Newton recieved a substantial sum (approx 150k) for his to sign with a certain school.
Since the NCAA can't prove that Cam knew anything about it he wasn't punished.
So by that logic, if Ryan doesn't know anything about what his mother recieved then he should be good to go. I have a difficult time believing, actually I dont believe the NCAA has any proof Ryan knew anything about it.

The witchhunt continues.

according to the article above, they changed the rules to now say it doesn't matter if the player knew or not.

This is a joke because you're changing the rules years after the actual event. No ex post facto laws!

 

[SJ]

according to the article above, they changed the rules to now say it doesn't matter if the player knew or not.

This is a joke because you're changing the rules years after the actual event. No ex post facto laws!

I was thinking this same thing. Although, with the Christmastime deposits, I don't think there is clear info on whether it was Christmas 2010 or 2011.