Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BostonCanuck, post: 2588438, member: 6931"] The best summary I've found on the sequence of events is here. It certainly is ugly: [URL='https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/02/20/louisville-loses-2013-ncaa-national-championship-penalty']Louisville's 2013 title loss is pointless penalty[/URL] But I think the part I struggle with most is, "nearly every case involving players deemed ineligible for taking extra benefits ends with the vacation of wins". Does that mean that [B]any [/B]infraction of rules during a recruiting process that confers [B]any [/B]benefit must result in the vacating of all wins during the recruited player(s) tenure? I'm not seeing a limiting principle here. I don't like that remedy in this case, for the reasons mentioned earlier. I also don't like the due process concerns created when a single entity, in this case the NCAA essentially gets to act as judge, jury and executioner. As to what would have been appropriate, I'm not sure I know the answer. I would have first focused more on the individuals that engaged in the wrongdoing. For example, the five-game suspension they metered out to Patino seems way too light. And was he the only individual personally sanctioned? If so, why? And then institutionally, there are the forward-looking scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, the financial fines, and the forfeiture of any money received through conference revenue sharing from the 2012-15 NCAA tournaments, that can and have been levied. I'm fine with all of that. But then to also adjust the historical record of games and erase a national championship, that is a bridge too far for me based on what I know about this case. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach