Louisville Punishment

[mini-shock]

not sure the point of this post. why are you trying to apply louisville's situation to WSU? can we apply these same questions to bill self and KU?

as for the second question, all 3 of the first group would have either been hired by the coach or most likely hired with strong input from Marshal.

as for there being no charges of prostitution and what-not, the ncaa doesnt need charges to be brought for them to take action. and you probably already knew this before you made this idiotic post which is not adding to the discussion at hand.

I used WSU because we are familiar with them. I didn't think everyone would know the upper admin at Louisville. Not trying to suggest anything about WSU.

The response to my second is the reason I feel that "failure to monitor" should not be on the HC - pitino, gregg, or anyone. In your understanding they may be hired by HCGM.

The fact that there has been no charges or prostitution, and the NCAA charged them anyway is bologna. That's why I am posting it. The NCAA and members of this forum have made accusations that have no legal substance. I understand you think it's idiotic and doesn't add to the discussion. However, clarifying and discussing the nature of "Failure to Monitor" and the evidence behind the LU punishment is adding to the discussion.

As for KU, yea that's all you bud.

[wufan]

I used WSU because we are familiar with them. I didn't think everyone would know the upper admin at Louisville. Not trying to suggest anything about WSU.

The response to my second is the reason I feel that "failure to monitor" should not be on the HC - pitino, gregg, or anyone. In your understanding they may be hired by HCGM.

The fact that there has been no charges or prostitution, and the NCAA charged them anyway is bologna. That's why I am posting it. The NCAA and members of this forum have made accusations that have no legal substance. I understand you think it's idiotic and doesn't add to the discussion. However, clarifying and discussing the nature of "Failure to Monitor" and the evidence behind the LU punishment is adding to the discussion.

As for KU, yea that's all you bud.

Remind me again what negative thing happened to the basketball team under HCGM. I can't recall.

As to your statement on failure to monitor; it's an NCAA requirement and is also a US requirement is legal matters..even if you didn't know it was going on. So, while you could argue that it shouldn't be a thing, it actually IS a thing. Since it is the reality, what was your point?

[lostshocker]

The fact that there has been no charges or prostitution, and the NCAA charged them anyway is bologna. That's why I am posting it. The NCAA and members of this forum have made accusations that have no legal substance. I understand you think it's idiotic and doesn't add to the discussion. However, clarifying and discussing the nature of "Failure to Monitor" and the evidence behind the LU punishment is adding to the discussion.

the ncaa does their own investigation of what happened. they do not need charges to be brought to slap infractions on any member school. they dont have to prove anything in a court of law just show the evidence they have broke any number of their bylaws.

[dregn]

I used WSU because we are familiar with them. I didn't think everyone would know the upper admin at Louisville. Not trying to suggest anything about WSU.

The response to my second is the reason I feel that "failure to monitor" should not be on the HC - pitino, gregg, or anyone. In your understanding they may be hired by HCGM.

The fact that there has been no charges or prostitution, and the NCAA charged them anyway is bologna. That's why I am posting it. The NCAA and members of this forum have made accusations that have no legal substance. I understand you think it's idiotic and doesn't add to the discussion. However, clarifying and discussing the nature of "Failure to Monitor" and the evidence behind the LU punishment is adding to the discussion.

As for KU, yea that's all you bud.

If you go do a little reading on the case from the links in this thread you'd see the statue of limitations in North Carolina's on prostitution is one year. The time has long passed for that charge.

[Aargh]

The madam that arranged for the girls to show up spilled her guts and told the whole story. There were no cops present at the time the recruits were having sex with the hookers, which is almost a requirement for bringing prostitution charges.

For some odd reason neither the madam, nor anyone on the coaching staff, nor any of the players or recruits turned the whole thing in to the cops. Imagine that!

Of course there were no criminal charges. That doesn't mean a criminal act was not committed.

Why do I feel like I'm trying to educate a third grader?

[ShockdaWorld]

The madam that arranged for the girls to show up spilled her guts and told the whole story. There were no cops present at the time the recruits were having sex with the hookers, which is almost a requirement for bringing prostitution charges.

For some odd reason neither the madam, nor anyone on the coaching staff, nor any of the players or recruits turned the whole thing in to the cops. Imagine that!

Of course there were no criminal charges. That doesn't mean a criminal act was not committed.

Why do I feel like I'm trying to educate a third grader?

Because you very well may be.

[mini-shock]

As to your statement on failure to monitor; it's an NCAA requirement and is also a US requirement is legal matters..even if you didn't know it was going on. So, while you could argue that it shouldn't be a thing, it actually IS a thing. Since it is the reality, what was your point?

I didn't find anything on a serarch related to a "US requirement in legal matters" except for patient care. My point simply is that I think it's lame and misguided. And that "Failure to monitor" seems more appropriate for administrative staff, and not the HC. That's pretty much it.

[mini-shock]

If you go do a little reading on the case from the links in this thread you'd see the statue of limitations in North Carolina's on prostitution is one year. The time has long passed for that charge.

I only see the ESPN story. Nothing about 1yr statute or N.C.

[mini-shock]

The madam that arranged for the girls to show up spilled her guts and told the whole story. There were no cops present at the time the recruits were having sex with the hookers, which is almost a requirement for bringing prostitution charges.

Of course there were no criminal charges. That doesn't mean a criminal act was not committed.

Why do I feel like I'm trying to educate a third grader?

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in prostitution charges, that's your expertise. With that being said, the ESPN article mentions different details as for the charge. And of course there could have been a criminal act. And it still remains that there is not enough evidence to charge for one. Nevertheless, NCAA and few on this board have what they need to say "Rick P. knew that his recruits and team were getting laid by prostitutes."

[Aargh]

I didn't find anything on a serarch related to a "US requirement in legal matters" except for patient care. My point simply is that I think it's lame and misguided. And that "Failure to monitor" seems more appropriate for administrative staff, and not the HC. That's pretty much it.

You have once again shown your utter inability to grasp how things work.

The coach hires the assistants, although they are technically employees of the athletic department. Institutional control is supposedly the NCAA's big stick. Institutional control means everyone is responsible for the actions of those in their department. A coach is responsible for the actions of his assistants, and the athletic department as a whole is responsible if departmental control breaks down.

Coaches are also expected to know what their assistants are doing and are supposedly (that's a laugh) held accountable for any infractions in their progerams. Coaches who like to break rules just have an assistant do it for them. An assistant can never say that he was only following orders, or that assistant will never work in any aspect of basketball ever again.

If an assistant basketball coach is breaking rules, the head coach is responsible for handling that. If it isn't handled at that level, then the athletic director is responsible for correcting the problem. If that isn't done, that's an indication of lack of institutional control, which can result in the death penalty for the athletic department.

There isn't a D1 coach worth having who will let his athletic director go past him and have authority over his assistants. No athletic director worth having will go past a head coach and take responsibility for what assistant coaches do. There are "departments" within an athletic department, and the various coaches are in absolute and total control of their individual departments. The buck stops with the coach. The coach reports to the athletic director. The coach, not the athletic director, is expected to take action if there is anything going on with his assistants that could cause a problem for the athletic department.

[ShockingButTrue]

In the end it is the University that is at fault. Not the HC or AHC, or even the waterboy.

[mini-shock]

You have once again shown your utter inability to grasp how things work.

The coach hires the assistants, although they are technically employees of the athletic department. Institutional control is supposedly the NCAA's big stick. Institutional control means everyone is responsible for the actions of those in their department. A coach is responsible for the actions of his assistants, and the athletic department as a whole is responsible if departmental control breaks down.

Coaches are also expected to know what their assistants are doing and are supposedly (that's a laugh) held accountable for any infractions in their progerams. Coaches who like to break rules just have an assistant do it for them. An assistant can never say that he was only following orders, or that assistant will never work in any aspect of basketball ever again.

If an assistant basketball coach is breaking rules, the head coach is responsible for handling that. If it isn't handled at that level, then the athletic director is responsible for correcting the problem. If that isn't done, that's an indication of lack of institutional control, which can result in the death penalty for the athletic department.

There isn't a D1 coach worth having who will let his athletic director go past him and have authority over his assistants. No athletic director worth having will go past a head coach and take responsibility for what assistant coaches do. There are "departments" within an athletic department, and the various coaches are in absolute and total control of their individual departments. The buck stops with the coach. The coach reports to the athletic director. The coach, not the athletic director, is expected to take action if there is anything going on with his assistants that could cause a problem for the athletic department.

That's why it was originally posed as a question. I asked questions about the relationship when we hired a new assistant after Jans left.

You suggest that it would be the AD's responsibility if Rick Pitino wasn't handling the matter. That is exactly what happened. Rick P could have had no idea, or knew and didn't take care of it. Where is the AD's failure to monitor

[wufan]

That's why it was originally posed as a question. I asked questions about the relationship when we hired a new assistant after Jans left.

You suggest that it would be the AD's responsibility if Rick Pitino wasn't handling the matter. That is exactly what happened. Rick P could have had no idea, or knew and didn't take care of it. Where is the AD's failure to monitor

If the NCAA can't find direct knowledge that the coach knew, then they just hammer the school as "lack of institutional control".

[another shocker]

mini-shock, are you really that stupid? stop equating louisville/wichita state and rick pitinio/gregg marshall at this point in time!

[dregn]

I only see the ESPN story. Nothing about 1yr statute or N.C.

Look closer for more links, this was posted earlier. Scroll through some of three other conversation and you'll see discussion on statue of limitations. https://twitter.com/ericcrawford/status/875412955474604032