Wow, and that's not even including the latest allegations against UL/Adidas spanning from the FBI investigation.

My personal 'test' is asking whether what Lousiville did was worse than what USC football did (or didn't do) in the Reggie Bush scandal. Seems to me UL had more involvement in these violations and are getting off easier than USC.

Basically, it seems the rule is pretty consistent on vacating wins - use ineligible players, vacate wins. But when it comes to future penalties like scholarship reductions, postseason bans, and show causes for coaches, the NCAA is all over the map.

But not sure what Louisville has for a complaint?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Wow, and that's not even including the latest allegations against UL/Adidas spanning from the FBI investigation.

My personal 'test' is asking whether what Lousiville did was worse that what USC football did (or didn't do) in the Reggie Bush scandal. Seems to me UL had more involvement in these violations and are getting of easier than USC.

Basically, it seems the rule is pretty consistent on vacating wins - use ineligible players, vacate wins. But when it comes to future penalties like scholarship reductions, postseason bans, and show causes for coaches, the NCAA is all over the map.

But not sure what Louisville has for a complaint?

---

From a news story on the Detroit Free Press website:

The decision announced on Tuesday by the governing body's Infraction Appeals Committee ruled that the NCAA has the authority to take away championships for what it considers major rule violations. It also refuted Louisville's position that the NCAA exceeded its boundaries and didn't follow its own precedent established in other cases and said in an eight-page decision that ended, "the penalties are upheld."


"I cannot say this strongly enough: We believe the NCAA is simply wrong," Louisville interim President Dr. Greg Postel said in a statement. "We disagree with the NCAA ruling for reasons we clearly stated in our appeal. And we made a strong case based on NCAA precedent that supported our argument."

"From Day One, the university has admitted that the actions of the former operations director and any others involved under previous leadership were offensive and inexcusable," Postel said in the statement. "That is why we apologized immediately, cooperated fully with the NCAA, self-imposed penalties that were appropriate to the offenses and made significant changes to ensure incidents like this never happen again.


"Under the NCAA's own rules, this cooperation should have been a factor in the severity of the punishment. Instead, it was ignored."

The school's own investigation into the allegation revealed that violations occurred and resulted in a self-imposed postseason ban nearly two years ago. Louisville later imposed scholarship and recruiting restrictions in an effort to mitigate further NCAA discipline.

So, I guess Louisville's argument is that they admitted guilt, cooperated, self imposed penalties and shouldn't have been spanked further. Sounds weak to me.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/2018/02/20/louisville-must-vacate-hoops-title-won-vs-um/110630272/

Louisville didn't argue against any of the allegations or facts of the case. Their only basis for the appeal was that the punishment was excessive because: 1) other schools have had stripper incidents and the NCAA didn't punish them and 2) Louisville was proactive in self-imposing penalties like the post-season ban and the NCAA failed to take into account. If I'm not mistaken, there was never a question of player eligibility or culpability, so if a precedent is being set here, it's that it would be the first time sanctions have been levied without that.

So....Wyking can't put asst coach on an NCAA champ on his resume anymore?

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Louisville didn't argue against any of the allegations or facts of the case. Their only basis for the appeal was that the punishment was excessive because: 1) other schools have had stripper incidents and the NCAA didn't punish them and 2) Louisville was proactive in self-imposing penalties like the post-season ban and the NCAA failed to take into account. If I'm not mistaken, there was never a question of player eligibility or culpability, so if a precedent is being set here, it's that it would be the first time sanctions have been levied without that.

---

What I read in an old USA Today article from last summer is that Louisville basically agreed the players were ineligible, but argued that they shouldn't have to vacate so many wins because if they had known about it earlier, all the players would have to do is pay the school back for the 'impermissible benefits'.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/louisville-cardinals-mens-basketball-prostitutes-strippers-ncaa-violation-sanctions-rick-pitino-2013-national-championship

In many ways it's a pretty good argument. And vacating wins is kind of silly. But school claiming ignorance of violations should not give them a pass either.

It also seems that UL did not really self report. With out that book with the stripper, they would have gone on doing what the do.

You're right, CB. I stand corrected. Reading through the original NCAA decision, they appear to have ruled that the players were ineligible for receiving extra benefits but it's the university and not the player which has to make restitution. Page 22 spells this out.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017INF_LouisvillePublicInfractionsDecisionF_20170615.pdf

So who gets the trophy now? will they have a parade?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Wow, and that's not even including the latest allegations against UL/Adidas spanning from the FBI investigation.

My personal 'test' is asking whether what Lousiville did was worse that what USC football did (or didn't do) in the Reggie Bush scandal. Seems to me UL had more involvement in these violations and are getting of easier than USC.

Basically, it seems the rule is pretty consistent on vacating wins - use ineligible players, vacate wins. But when it comes to future penalties like scholarship reductions, postseason bans, and show causes for coaches, the NCAA is all over the map.

But not sure what Louisville has for a complaint?

---

Unless every coach, player, fan or anyone else associated with Louisville is required to report to the Men in Black to look into the flashy thing and then be told they lost every game in crushing fashion, I don't see this punishment as sufficient.

OaktownBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Wow, and that's not even including the latest allegations against UL/Adidas spanning from the FBI investigation.

My personal 'test' is asking whether what Lousiville did was worse that what USC football did (or didn't do) in the Reggie Bush scandal. Seems to me UL had more involvement in these violations and are getting of easier than USC.

Basically, it seems the rule is pretty consistent on vacating wins - use ineligible players, vacate wins. But when it comes to future penalties like scholarship reductions, postseason bans, and show causes for coaches, the NCAA is all over the map.

But not sure what Louisville has for a complaint?

---

Unless every coach, player, fan or anyone else associated with Louisville is required to report to the Men in Black to look into the flashy thing and then be told they lost every game in crushing fashion, I don't see this punishment as sufficient.

---

That's the whole comedy of it all with the NCAA. The penalized schools claims they are so wronged by these draconian rules, while others are like what good does vacating wins even do?

Notre Dame football is pulling the same thing with vacated wins resulting from their academic scandal. And I'm like, STFU ND, if you were named Cal you'd have to give up wins AND have a postseason ban.

I wonder if the NCAA will make Pitino remove his commemorative tattoo.

Vacating wins or titles might be the weakest penalty in all of sports. At the end of the day, everyone will still know Louisville won that title. This hurts them in no way.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I wonder if the NCAA will make Pitino remove his commemorative tattoo.

---

yikes!

ayetee11 said:

---

Vacating wins or titles might be the weakest penalty in all of sports. At the end of the day, everyone will still know Louisville won that title. This hurts them in no way.

---

But that's just one element of the overall penalty levied against Louisville. They also forfeited their ACC revenue sharing payments for several years, had scholarship reductions (they proposed 2, the NCAA tacked on 4 more), a post-season ban, recruiting restrictions/limits on visits and few other things. They're definitely not getting off easy. The NCAA saved that for UNC.

ColoradoBear said:

---

My personal 'test' is asking whether what Lousiville did was worse that what USC football did (or didn't do) in the Reggie Bush scandal. Seems to me UL had more involvement in these violations and are getting of easier than USC.

---

I agree that Louisville's misconduct has been worse than that at USC -- which is saying a lot. Whether their punishment is sufficient is up for debate, I guess.

Does Wyking have to return his championship ring?

Corruption in college sports?

I am shocked, SHOCKED ...

puget sound cal fan said:

---

Does Wyking have to return his championship ring?

---

He now has one fewer ring than Ben Braun.