Jump to content

Trey Kaufman Commits to Purdue


KDB

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
18 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

 

Louisville has had a nice recruiting advantage for awhile now...cash to recruits, strippers...

 

I am comfortable in saying that if either of those things are put in front of Kaufman during recruiting, that school would be marked off his list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I constantly hear Louisville fans talk about how they are worried about the NCAA yet nothing has happened. Now they are ranked 2nd in the country and are still bringing in recruits. Even after the stripper scandal they were never really set back. I just want karma to finally catch up with these people. But as pathetic as the NCAA is it probably will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HoosierMatty said:

I constantly here Louisville fans talk about how they are worried about the NCAA yet nothing has happened. Now they are ranked 2nd in the country and are still bringing in recruits. Even after the stripper scandal they were never really set back. I just want karma to finally catch up with these people. But as pathetic as the NCAA is it probably will never happen.

My gut feeling is that nothing has happened because the individuals that committed those violations are no longer there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kyhoosier29 said:

How did that guy making excessive phone calls and us booting him qualify as less proactive or worse than what happened at Louisville? Not sure what you mean here.

Most of IU's sanctions were self imposed. That's what I mean and Louisville isn't doing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

So if we simply took the sanctions imposed by the NCAA and didn't tack any additional sanctions on ourselves.....does that violate your definition of integrity?

For me with the Sampson situation I was upset with the type of players he was bringing into the program and the way he ran the program.  I know it is only phone calls and if this was his first offense I could over look it more but he had been caught doing the exact same thing before.  When I was talking about integrity is that the University did what they felt was best and it did not care if it effected what we saw on the court.  they did not put winning over integrity and I was glad on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

For me with the Sampson situation I was upset with the type of players he was bringing into the program and the way he ran the program.  I know it is only phone calls and if this was his first offense I could over look it more but he had been caught doing the exact same thing before.  When I was talking about integrity is that the University did what they felt was best and it did not care if it effected what we saw on the court.  they did not put winning over integrity and I was glad on that.

What are you referring to when you say "...the University did what they felt was best....": firing Sampson, or the self imposed sanctions?

If it's firing Sampson, I'm with you 100%. 

But, if you're saying that you believe that we had to add on our own self imposed sanctions in order to maintain integrity, I disagree.  If you realize that you made a mistake on your tax returns 2 years ago and owe the IRS $100, you pay them $100.  You don't look any better by paying the $100 plus a self imposed fine of an additional $50.  Nobody is going to chastise you for simply paying the penalty assigned to you.  You've met your obligation. 

IU self-imposing penalties is the equivalent of paying the additional fine.  If we had done nothing different (aside from operating according to the rules) while the NCAA was making its ruling, even if the penalties had been the same after the fact, we may have had recourse available when they changed the rules a year later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

What are you referring to when you say "...the University did what they felt was best....": firing Sampson, or the self imposed sanctions?

If it's firing Sampson, I'm with you 100%. 

But, if you're saying that you believe that we had to add on our own self imposed sanctions in order to maintain integrity, I disagree.  If you realize that you made a mistake on your tax returns 2 years ago and owe the IRS $100, you pay them $100.  You don't look any better by paying the $100 plus a self imposed fine of an additional $50.  Nobody is going to chastise you for simply paying the penalty assigned to you.  You've met your obligation. 

IU self-imposing penalties is the equivalent of paying the additional fine.  If we had done nothing different (aside from operating according to the rules) while the NCAA was making its ruling, even if the penalties had been the same after the fact, we may have had recourse available when they changed the rules a year later. 

I was more going on what they did with the kids on the team that did not go to class or were suspended for drugs.  I felt it was the right thing to kick those kids off the team and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just my bias showing but what Sampson did was infinitesimal compared to UL's actions as fevealed in the Addidas probe. Sampson committed a minor violation of a rule that he had been caught violating in the past (at a different school), while UL committed major violations while on probation.  Not only that, but Sampson was breaking rules unilaterally while UL's acts involved the head coach, assistant(s) and possibly the AD.

UL's situation seems to fit the term "lack of institutional control" and deserves, IMO, harsh penalties from the NCAA.  Their inaction from the facts revealed in the FBI probe illustrates how absolutely impotent they are (or choose to be).

As I mentioned last week, a look at the top 20 poll proves that cheating pays off and comes with little consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I was more going on what they did with the kids on the team that did not go to class or were suspended for drugs.  I felt it was the right thing to kick those kids off the team and start over.

This is going to show the levels of lunacy that go on at the administrative level, because the actions that IU took contradict both your standpoint and  @dbmhoosier's standpoint. 

The violations regarding drugs/grades etc weren't common public knowledge at the time of Sampson's firing. So from a public perspective, he was being fired for phone violations.  The administration at the time was going to overlook the other stuff in exchange for winning....exactly the standpoint @dbmhoosier was describing.  But, if they value winning so much....they're going to fire him for phone calls? Now they're saying they value integrity, but just not over certain things (translation, not actual integrity).  So congratulations IU administration, you took action that simultaneously disagreed with both polar opposite standpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC2345 said:

Most of IU's sanctions were self imposed. That's what I mean and Louisville isn't doing that. 

Exactly. And the general mentality is why should they. They say they didn't nail UNC. And Kansas is fighting the NCAA as well. So from their perspective they would just rather fight it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Zuckerkorn said:

Maybe it's just my bias showing but what Sampson did was infinitesimal compared to UL's actions as fevealed in the Addidas probe. Sampson committed a minor violation of a rule that he had been caught violating in the past (at a different school), while UL committed major violations while on probation.  Not only that, but Sampson was breaking rules unilaterally while UL's acts involved the head coach, assistant(s) and possibly the AD.

UL's situation seems to fit the term "lack of institutional control" and deserves, IMO, harsh penalties from the NCAA.  Their inaction from the facts revealed in the FBI probe illustrates how absolutely impotent they are (or choose to be).

As I mentioned last week, a look at the top 20 poll proves that cheating pays off and comes with little consequence.

But I guess my point is why should the NCAA punish coaches and players that didn't have anything to do with what slick Rick and the former players did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louisville should have acted against Pitino after the strippers.  But, to their credit, they terminated him after he cash payment story came out.  That's more than UNC did with Williams in the wake of the academic scandal, Kansas has done against Self for payments and cars, or Michigan State did against Izzo for the off court problems of his players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DC2345 said:

But I guess my point is why should the NCAA punish coaches and players that didn't have anything to do with what slick Rick and the former players did?

Well, it'd be great if the NCAA would act swiftly but they don't.  Definitely those coaches should receive show-cause punishments.  That said, the current coaches and players must have been aware when they signed their contract/LOI of the violations that are alleged - no way they're ignorant of the past even if they choose to act like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

This is going to show the levels of lunacy that go on at the administrative level, because the actions that IU took contradict both your standpoint and  @dbmhoosier's standpoint. 

The violations regarding drugs/grades etc weren't common public knowledge at the time of Sampson's firing. So from a public perspective, he was being fired for phone violations.  The administration at the time was going to overlook the other stuff in exchange for winning....exactly the standpoint @dbmhoosier was describing.  But, if they value winning so much....they're going to fire him for phone calls? Now they're saying they value integrity, but just not over certain things (translation, not actual integrity).  So congratulations IU administration, you took action that simultaneously disagreed with both polar opposite standpoints.

Wasn't there talk that the university was just going the phone call thing as a cover and what they were really upset about was Sampson's recruits?  I understand that wasn't known publicly at the time, but the impression I get now is that had it just been phone calls, they may have tried to work with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Wasn't there talk that the university was just going the phone call thing as a cover and what they were really upset about was Sampson's recruits?  I understand that wasn't known publicly at the time, but the impression I get now is that had it just been phone calls, they may have tried to work with him.

Plausible enough.  Whether it's true or someone just connecting two dots that are in close proximity to each other....my ears don't listen that high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

This is going to show the levels of lunacy that go on at the administrative level, because the actions that IU took contradict both your standpoint and  @dbmhoosier's standpoint. 

The violations regarding drugs/grades etc weren't common public knowledge at the time of Sampson's firing. So from a public perspective, he was being fired for phone violations.  The administration at the time was going to overlook the other stuff in exchange for winning....exactly the standpoint @dbmhoosier was describing.  But, if they value winning so much....they're going to fire him for phone calls? Now they're saying they value integrity, but just not over certain things (translation, not actual integrity).  So congratulations IU administration, you took action that simultaneously disagreed with both polar opposite standpoints.

We bring forward and self impose and get killed! Other schools... UL and UNC hide like snakes in the grass and continue to flourish!! Sick of UL and UNC! They both make me want to vomit anytime I hear of them or see them!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...