Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Want to help support PFN?

In lieu of ads you can help me to offset PFN operating costs by making any of your Amazon.com purchases through this link at no additional cost to you.

State Releases NCAA Notice of Allegations and NCSU response

1235

Comments

  • What Rye said. Take a token penalty with no post season punishment and move on. Heck, Gott didn't even use all his scholarships anyway, KK has been hamstrung trying to fill out a roster, so what's one scholarship?
  • TheAliasTrollTheAliasTroll Posts: 2,664PFN Referee
    edited December 2019

    IMO by agreeing to any punishment we are giving in to the NCAA.

    The punishment we are self imposing is for Gott and staff giving out extra tickets to players for games which is considered impermissible benefit, but not a level 1 infraction.  So a much lesser violation we are claiming has occurred.

    It's straight out of the UNC playbook.

  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee

    IMO by agreeing to any punishment we are giving in to the NCAA.

    The punishment we are self imposing is for Gott and staff giving out extra tickets to players for games which is considered impermissible benefit, but not a level 1 infraction.  So a much lesser violation we are claiming has occurred.

    It's straight out of the UNC playbook.


    And IMO we should have told them where they could stick it.
    But I am tilting at windmills and not being realistic. Believe it or not I would be fine literally taking on the behemoth that is the NCAA even if it meant harming our fb and bb. Heck we aren't going to win any thing anyway. I despise what college sports has become. 
    Though the reality is this works it is probably best case. 
  • TheAliasTrollTheAliasTroll Posts: 2,664PFN Referee
    edited December 2019
    Believe it or not I would be fine literally taking on the behemoth that is the NCAA even if it meant harming our fb and bb.

    I believe it lol!  I don't think I would be too mad if we did either to be honest..

    Heck we could go even further and just tell them fuck you we are going to pay DSJ more than he makes now and have him come play this year.  I mean if you're going to give them the middle finger you got to do it right.

  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    Believe it or not I would be fine literally taking on the behemoth that is the NCAA even if it meant harming our fb and bb.

    I believe it lol!  I don't think I would be too mad if we did either to be honest..

    Heck we could go even further and just tell them fuck you we are going to pay DSJ more than he makes now and have him come play this year.  I mean if you're going to give them the middle finger you got to do it right.


    Honestly, we are not going to have a fair chance to win anything until the system is changed so why not. 
  • If you're going to go that route, rather than out-right cheating, why not drop to Division 3 and do away with all athletic scholarships? I suspect we could find enough basketball players in the intramural leagues to fill out a decent roster and compete in Division 3.
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    If you're going to go that route, rather than out-right cheating, why not drop to Division 3 and do away with all athletic scholarships? I suspect we could find enough basketball players in the intramural leagues to fill out a decent roster and compete in Division 3.

    The ultimate goal is to reform or abolish the NCAA so there is a level playing field. 
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    Again, I know its not going to happen. A man can dream can't he?
  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 2,687
    Rick said:
    Again, I know its not going to happen. A man can dream can't he?
    Sure

    Don Quixote does it all the time

    That was a real softball, but I could not resist 
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    Roo,
    Earlier I did say I was tilting at windmills. 


  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 2,153PFN Referee
    edited December 2019
    Rick said:
    Again, I know its not going to happen. A man can dream can't he?
    There's nothing wrong with dreaming.  Your dream is my dream.  

    I am not convinced it is NC State's dream. I think the University wants to keep getting that free candy.  Just get their name out of the press and move on.

    The NCAA wants the exact same thing.  They'll let NC State off relatively easily if we're playing by the rules and agree to some minor things.  See, the system is working!  Let's just get all this messiness behind us and keep minting money.
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    ryebread said:
    Rick said:
    Again, I know its not going to happen. A man can dream can't he?
    There's nothing wrong with dreaming.  Your dream is my dream.  

    I am not convinced it is NC State's dream. I think the University wants to keep getting that free candy.  Just get their name out of the press and move on.

    The NCAA wants the exact same thing.  They'll let NC State off relatively easily if we're playing by the rules and agree to some minor things.  See, the system is working!  Let's just get all this messiness behind us and keep minting money.

    It is obviously State's dream. Heck, we put language in the AD's agreement that will extend his contract if we get sanctions. State is encouraging this result. 
  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 2,153PFN Referee
    I am convinced that the administration at NC State is as complicit in this as almost any other middling P5 schools.  Sure there are dirtier programs (which definitely seem to correlate with winning in most instances), but generally all the P5 schools are happy with the current situation.  It allows them to build Taj Mahal’s and have urinating contests all in the name of “higher education.”

    Give me the D3 model.
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    Rye,
    That's a good point. They can have lavish lifestyles with this model and not even have to worry about winning.

  • say it again:
    well, i will quote Blazing Saddles for an NCAA opinion:
    Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits!
    We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen.
  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 1,653
    No clue where this ends up. I just don’t know if you admit to anything. It’s not like we are dealing with an organization who says, “They cooperated. They punished themselves proactively a little more likely than we would. They fired the coach who did this. We’re all good. We will accept this in lieu of a trial.” They decide what they want to decide.

    They see how hard they can punish folks based on the strength of their advocates and “send a message” if allowable to keep the vast majority of their institutions in line. Once they realized which way ESPN - who is basically a keen insight to what the mainstream media and population centers think...they do what pleases them or what won’t piss them off. They know we have weak allies, that’s why they ignored the metric they created to help pick the at large bids in the NCAAs (after we won what ESPN had previously called a de facto play in game)...but then ESPN proceeded to sound off against us the next 24 and welp, we were NIT bound.

     This “we will accept this punishment but fight this” just seems to me like posturing so when we get nailed we can make it seem like we tried. Hopefully, I am wrong. 
  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 2,153PFN Referee
    I think we took our post season ban this past year.... Think about the series of events and where things likely end up (copped plea) and it isn’t so far fetched.
  • JpageJpage Posts: 95
    ALL moneys paid could have been eligible to non basketball players too. A walk on could have played and gotten better and could have received money also. So the money was there for students just like those classes were ! Just sayin ! 
  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 1,653
    Rye - I would like to think last year’s snub was a result of a de facto post season ban. However, keep in mind Ga Tech just got a post season ban for seemingly less. Missouri exhibited maximum cooperation and they got a post season ban.

     I hope you’re right. However, I don’t think it ends up well for us.
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    choppack1 said:
    Rye - I would like to think last year’s snub was a result of a de facto post season ban. However, keep in mind Ga Tech just got a post season ban for seemingly less. Missouri exhibited maximum cooperation and they got a post season ban.

     I hope you’re right. However, I don’t think it ends up well for us.

    Yeah, I think the NCAA tries to screw us and admitting to anything is just an invitation.

  • TexpackTexpack Posts: 2,513
    The NCAA put our case first for several reasons.  It's the weakest case by far and they want to set the floor for punishment.  It also doesn't involve coaches who are still at the institution in question so there's less at stake in terms of program reputation, etc.  Neither Gott nor Early was ever was recorded discussing the dirty dealings.  I think Gott's experience with jealous husbands/boyfriends probably paid off with knowing how to spot surveillance. The NCAA was hoping we would cave and set a high floor to make the rest of the cases easier to settle but they realize that they can let us off relatively easy and not really hurt their ability to go after the others with both barrels.  Now I think you will see them accept our proposal in large part and move on to the bigger fish.
  • RickRick Posts: 2,358PFN Referee
    Texpack said:
    The NCAA put our case first for several reasons.  It's the weakest case by far and they want to set the floor for punishment.  It also doesn't involve coaches who are still at the institution in question so there's less at stake in terms of program reputation, etc.  Neither Gott nor Early was ever was recorded discussing the dirty dealings.  I think Gott's experience with jealous husbands/boyfriends probably paid off with knowing how to spot surveillance. The NCAA was hoping we would cave and set a high floor to make the rest of the cases easier to settle but they realize that they can let us off relatively easy and not really hurt their ability to go after the others with both barrels.  Now I think you will see them accept our proposal in large part and move on to the bigger fish.

    I hope you are right. I can see them slamming us and then letting the others off easier and claiming they are tough because of what they did to us. We are irrelevant after all.
  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 2,153PFN Referee
    Texpack said:
    The NCAA put our case first for several reasons.  It's the weakest case by far and they want to set the floor for punishment.  It also doesn't involve coaches who are still at the institution in question so there's less at stake in terms of program reputation, etc.  Neither Gott nor Early was ever was recorded discussing the dirty dealings.  I think Gott's experience with jealous husbands/boyfriends probably paid off with knowing how to spot surveillance. The NCAA was hoping we would cave and set a high floor to make the rest of the cases easier to settle but they realize that they can let us off relatively easy and not really hurt their ability to go after the others with both barrels.  Now I think you will see them accept our proposal in large part and move on to the bigger fish.
    I think you are right.  The NCAA will want to settle this quickly to prove to the Feds that their model works.  The NC State proposal (paired with a show cause for Early and maybe some restriction on the Gott man) likely will be quickly accepted.

    Maybe they go one step further with a single year postseason ban.  If that were what they were thinking, if I were NC State I'd say "even if this is true, which it isn't as we've already discussed, it's not like we made the postseason with DSJ."


  • I haven't followed it closely enough and haven't read the entire response either. But the part I'm curious about is:

    From the N&O, we "argue[d] that Adidas wasn't the source of the alleged $40,000 payment from Gassnola to Early. NC State alleges the money came from Martin Fox, a Texas-based middle man who is 'affiliated with professional basketball player agents and business managers and who had no known relationship with Adidas.'"

    Continuing, "NC State argues that Fox is a third party with no affiliation to the school and provided the money for the alleged payment to steer Smith toward certain agents and financial advisers once he turned pro."

    Early presumably didn't cooperate or participate, right? But if part of our argument is, the NCAA has no direct evidence of payment other than Gassnola's testimony, do we have direct evidence of the above Fox's alleged involvement? And if so, how?
  • TexpackTexpack Posts: 2,513
    The distinction on the source of the money shifts the crime from a recruiting violation to an impermissible benefit in the form of a loan. That’s not insignificant. 
Sign In or Register to comment.