NCAA hits Miami - what about Duke?

[Goose85]

From this read, it sounds like the NCAA is telling former players they will be considered guilty and add to the penalty if they don't talk.

My question is - will the NCAA use the same ploy in the Duke case involving Lance Thomas and almost $100 K in jewlery?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21081274/former-miami-players-will-be-considered-guilty-if-they-dont-cooperate-with-the-ncaa

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

No, they won't.

[IWB]

I thought the same thing.

"If Miami players don't respond, that will result in an assumed guilty verdict".

"Former Duke player nor jewler will talk, so there is nothing we can do."

How is that right?

[TheSultan]

The cases are a little different. Shapiro is telling investigators that he gave improper benefits to Miami player...the players refuse to cooperate so the NCAA is going to assume that Shapiro's story is correct. The jeweler in the Duke case is not claiming he gave improper benefits to Lance Thomas.

[IWB]

Yes, the jeweler did actually claim that when he admitted he gave an SA a $60,000 loan.

Also, he claimed that the player put down $30,000 - where did an SA get $30,000?

When it made noise - it was quickly 'cleaned up'.

The NCAA looks into it, says neither will talk, so there is "nothing they can do". They can do, they can say "If you won't talk, we assume you are guilty".

[TheSultan]

Yes, the jeweler did actually claim that when he admitted he gave an SA a $60,000 loan.

Also, he claimed that the player put down $30,000 - where did an SA get $30,000?


Well, simply giving him a loan isn't an improper benefit unless they can prove there was no intent for repayment and the jeweler was a booster.

The $30k downpayment issue is separate, but is currently being investigated.

[IWB]

Actually, giving a kid with zero income, but with the 'potential' to pay it off a $60k loan is an improper benefit. This was determined years ago when kids were getting car loans based on future earnings. Unless you give a regular student with no income a $60k loan, then it is a special benefit, an improper benefit.

Right now there is no question that Nerlens Noel will be a lottery pick, making him millions next year, but he can't get a car loan based on future earnings, that would be an improper benefit - this is no different.

[TheSultan]

Actually, giving a kid with zero income, but with the 'potential' to pay it off a $60k loan is an improper benefit. This was determined years ago when kids were getting car loans based on future earnings. Unless you give a regular student with no income a $60k loan, then it is a special benefit, an improper benefit.

Right now there is no question that Nerlens Noel will be a lottery pick, making him millions next year, but he can't get a car loan based on future earnings, that would be an improper benefit - this is no different.

OK...thanks for the clarification. I was obviously unaware of that.

[ValiantSailor]

Actually, giving a kid with zero income, but with the 'potential' to pay it off a $60k loan is an improper benefit. This was determined years ago when kids were getting car loans based on future earnings. Unless you give a regular student with no income a $60k loan, then it is a special benefit, an improper benefit.

How could the NCAA, with their almost nonexistent enforcement arm, ever hope to make those rules stick? It would require someone to turn the miscreant in. Unless it hits the news, ala Lance Thomas or Shapiro, it's a rule that can't be enforced. I often see photos of college athletes with gaudy jewelry in their ears. But maybe they're cubic zirconias - you think? My point is that many college athletes are getting impermissible benefits, because the kids know they won't get caught.

VS