RE: Does the NCAA play favorites?

[Andy LaCombe]

The thing that burns me, is when someone like Doook Vitale spouts off about
schools doing it the right way and he ALWAYS mentions Doook.  What a crock.
Huggs gets grief for what former players do, and Doook is Teflon clean no
matter what happens.

I think someone should investigate the real problem, the NCAA.  Then the
dirt on them could be dug up and things straightened out.  Yeah right,
that'll happen ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Holdheide, Brad [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:46 AM
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Does the NCAA play favorites?


This isn't the only case against Duke.  If you read into the website
www.truthaboutduke.com you'll see other instances where players parents are
given unearned jobs by Duke alumni as well as many other questionable
actions.

Case in point. Carlos Boozers mom is hired by one of Mike K's best friends
who also happens to be one of Duke largest contributors.  If I remember the
story correctly, she's given a job as a financial analyst (which she has no
credentials for) and is paid well above the pay scale for that position.
Another player's mom was hired as a secretary by this same guy and was paid
more than the executives were making for a secretarial position.

Check out the website.  It is disturbing.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Wedinger [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:06 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: [UC Basketball] Does the NCAA play favorites?

Check out this column which appears on Yahoo Sports (written by Dan Wetzel):

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - It's an old argument: The NCAA selectively enforces its

rules. When it comes to violations, the critics contend, it goes easy on 
favored programs while actively investigating and hammering others.

By laying down the law on some, the NCAA looks serious about cracking down 
on cheats. By ignoring the transgressions of others, it sets up a profitable

business model.

College athletics is popular, in part, because it has clean programs and 
dirty ones, black hats and white, heels and heroes. In reality the division 
isn't so clear, but who cares about reality? This works in wrestling, 
doesn't it?

The NCAA has denied it for decades. It says it treats all institutions 
equally.

Which brings us to the curious case of Corey Maggette, Myron Piggie and 
Duke, most certainly one of the NCAA's golden programs.

And for good reason. Under the impressive command of Mike Krzyzewski, Duke 
has fielded not only a team with a winning record in 21 of the past 24 
seasons but also a team comprised of likable, high-quality student-athletes.

When people cite programs that "do it the right way," Duke usually is the 
first example. These are the good guys.

But what happens when a bad thing happens to a good program? What if Duke 
fielded a team with an ineligible player? What if the precedent for such an 
offense called for the embarrassing forfeiture of games and the stripping of

a Final Four appearance?

Would the NCAA ever risk tarnishing the image of a public relations 
cornerstone? Would the association ever treat Duke and its Hall of Fame 
coach like everyone else?

We are waiting (and waiting and waiting) to find out. Each passing day 
answers the question more definitively.

Here is a timeline of the case in question:

April 1997 to August 1997: Kansas City summer basketball coach Myron Piggie 
makes cash payments to high school player Corey Maggette totaling $2,000. 
The money comes from a revenue pool that includes donations to Piggie from 
professional sports agents Kevin Poston and Jerome Stanley.

Nov. 12, 1997: Maggette signs a national letter of intent with Duke.

October 1998 to March 1999: Maggette averages 10.6 points per game to help 
Duke (37-2) reach the national championship game, which Duke loses to 
Connecticut.

June 30, 1999: Maggette is selected 13th in the NBA draft.

April 13, 2000: A federal grand jury in Missouri hands down an 11-count 
indictment of Piggie, which details the payments to Maggette (along with 
players at three other schools). By NCAA statutes the payments compromise 
Maggette's amateur status. Maggette initially denies receiving any money.

April 18, 2000: The NCAA's Jane Jankowski says: "We will have to determine 
if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. And, if 
so, what monies would have to be returned for use of an ineligible player."

May 23, 2000: Piggie works a plea bargain and admits making the payments.

July 12, 2000: Maggette comes clean and admits he received the cash from 
Piggie.

Spring 2001: Duke hands over all its information to the NCAA, according to 
John Burness, Duke's senior vice president for public affairs.

May 30, 2001: Piggie is sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for fraud.

January 2003: Piggie is paroled from federal prison in Arkansas.

As for the NCAA ruling, it's been nearly four years since all pertinent 
information was admitted under oath, four years after the NCAA vowed to 
"determine" if Duke violated eligibility standards and three years after the

school presented its defense.

"We don't have any information on that," NCAA spokesperson Monica Lunderman 
said Tuesday. The NCAA does not provide comment concerning "ongoing 
investigations."

But what they could still be investigating is unclear. There appears to be 
nothing else to find. Everyone long ago admitted everything. If there is any

movement on the case, Duke administrators are unaware.

"We have not heard anything official for the past year," Burness said 
Tuesday.

So the case is what, fully investigated but never to be ruled on? The NCAA 
hoping it just fades away, forgotten?

These things take time though, right? Not really.

While 20 teams were forced to vacate NCAA appearances during the 1990s for 
use of ineligible players, the two most pertinent cases involve Missouri and

Jevon Crudup in 1994 and Massachusetts and Marcus Camby in 1996.

Like Maggette, both players received payments from either agents or people 
affiliated with agents. Both rightfully were deemed to have violated the 
NCAA's standards of amateurism and thus made their teams ineligible for 
competition.

When Missouri turned in its case in the spring of 1996, it took the NCAA 
less than four months to find the Tigers guilty, strip them of their 1994 
NCAA Elite Eight appearance and demand the repayment of $97,000 in revenue.

In March of 1997 UMass turned over its case, and just seven weeks later the 
NCAA vacated the school's 1996 Final Four appearance, took away 35 victories

and asked for restitution of $160,000 in revenue.

In both cases, the schools and its coaches were exonerated of any 
wrongdoing.

And that is probably the case with Krzyzewski and Duke. It is unlikely 
anyone in Durham knew, or should have known, about Maggette's dealings with 
Piggie. But that has nothing to do with the rules. If you play one 
ineligible player, even unintentionally, by definition your team is 
ineligible.

Duke has a wrinkle in its defense. Maggette took his money before he was 
enrolled at the school. Crudup and Camby took them while in college.

"At no time when he was associated with Duke did [Maggette] take the 
payments," Burness said. "It is very different when someone is enrolled."

It is a compelling argument and maybe it spares the Blue Devils from 
punishment. But amateur status seems like a clearly defined standard you 
can't cross back and forth from. It is sort of like saying someone is a 
little bit pregnant.

This would be an interesting decision for the NCAA to make. Maybe Duke 
should be cleared. Maybe not. But the normally vigilant NCAA has made no 
effort to judge this seemingly fully investigated case. No ruling. No phone 
calls to Duke for a year. No word.

When it was Missouri and Massachusetts, justice was swift, complete and 
appropriately in line with NCAA statutes.

So why not with Duke?

Saturday the Blue Devils play in their 14th Final Four, white hats firmly 
secured, no tarnish, forfeits or embarrassing scandals on Krzyzewski's 
legacy. The NCAA business model rolls on.

Meanwhile the "investigation" soon enters its fourth year.

"You would think it would be completed by now," the NCAA's Lunderman said.

Sometimes silence can say a lot.

Keith Wedinger
Bearcatnews.com
Sciotofootball.com

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee(r) 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963