what are the details on this? I heard they got their 98 or 99 or whenever Final Four taken out of the books and three years probation? Does that mean when they get Odin they are tourney ineligible? how about this year?

3/11/2006 2:35:06 PM

all those guys coming in have clauses in their LOIs that say they can leave if there is post season probation. i've never heard of something like that but apparently they have it

3/11/2006 2:44:00 PM

This has zero effect on their current/future players. There are no postseason bans or anything like that, just forfeiture of the old F4 banner and about $800,000.

3/11/2006 2:45:31 PM

as well as the entire athletic dept is under 3 yrs probation.

3/11/2006 2:53:10 PM

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/stories/031006abu.html

Quote :

"March 10, 2006 COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Ohio State was placed on three years' probation Friday, a ruling that wipes out records from four NCAA tournament appearances by the men's basketball team - including a trip to the 1999 Final Four. The decision by the NCAA does not affect this season's team, which is 22-4, ranked seventh in the country and the No. 1 seed in the Big Ten tournament. The Buckeyes won't be barred from postseason play as a result of using an ineligible player from 1999-2002 under former coach Jim O'Brien. However, the school will have to repay tournament revenues, likely around $800,000, for the four years in which Boban Savovic played. He received improper gifts, including housing and cash, from a booster. Ohio State must take down the 1999 Final Four banner which hangs from the rafters in Value City Arena. The NCAA came down hard on O'Brien and former assistant coach Paul Biancardi, now the head coach at Wright State. If O'Brien tries to get a job at another college, he and his new school must appear before the NCAA's infractions committee to discuss whether he will face additional limitations. Biancardi was prohibited from recruiting until Oct. 1, 2007. If he does, Wright State could face NCAA sanctions. Ohio State had acknowledged eight of nine violations alleged by the NCAA. The school fired O'Brien in June 2004 and held last season's team out of the postseason to try to avoid any additional penalties. The Buckeyes also limited their men's basketball scholarships to 11 this season, instead of the allowed 13. Other penalties include a public reprimand and a reduction in on-campus visits by basketball recruits next year. Seven violations involved the men's basketball program under O'Brien. The other two involved women's basketball and football. "

[Edited on March 11, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2006 2:58:22 PM

thanks for clarification

3/11/2006 3:41:44 PM

who was the ineligible guy?

3/11/2006 6:38:32 PM

Quote :

"Boban Savovic"

3/11/2006 6:51:01 PM

oh shit, I dunno how I missed it in bold


I've been copy editing shit all weekend, I need a break

3/11/2006 6:52:15 PM

... so again, basically no punishment.

3/11/2006 7:13:02 PM

making a team take down a banner that is over 1/2 a decade old is so bush leauge. what purpose does this serve? so there was no final four that year only a final three? why not just round up all of the players in the '99 tourney and replay the entire thing to make it fair. funny how you never see the ncaa punish national champions in this manner when violations are discovered after the fact.

3/11/2006 7:36:09 PM

^um, how about it tells their coach that if you cheat, there will be long lasting consequences. Taking down a banner and wins goes quite a ways in doing that. Furthermore, you realize this helps everyone else who plays by the rules?

3/11/2006 7:46:22 PM

not really, cuz now someone didnt make it to the final four that should have

so it really is a final three, theres no point to it

its just punishment for the sake of punishment

3/11/2006 8:01:05 PM

thats fine, if you want to go back in time and take away accomplishments, take away their football title as well. just saying that it's not consistent for the ncaa to use this policy ONLY when a National Champion is not involved.

speaking of which...did Duke have to vacate a final four appearance because of Magette? not trying to be a smart ass, really would like to know the answer.

[Edited on March 11, 2006 at 8:04 PM. Reason : m]

3/11/2006 8:01:09 PM

They are trying to strike a balance between punishment and absurdity. Taking away an NC is more absurd than taking away a final four. It's not as though they dont have other ways to punish an NC cheater.

To correctly assess a punishment, you have to consider all aspects, not just one.

3/11/2006 8:05:06 PM

so they are saying if you are going to cheat, you might as well cheat big to better your chances of winning a title in which case we will not take it from you, since winning a title is the ultimate goal of your initial desire to cheat in the first place.

3/11/2006 8:11:52 PM

And then suffer in basketball purgatory for 10 years. Cheating big might work to get 1 championship, but it will most certainly prevent your school's basketball program from building itself into a perennial winner.

3/11/2006 8:22:18 PM

Quote :

"speaking of which...did Duke have to vacate a final four appearance because of Magette? "

WTF are you talking about?

3/11/2006 8:25:18 PM

exactly, since its forgotten, it didnt happen

3/11/2006 10:48:51 PM

Quote :

"Does the NCAA play favorites? by Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports March 31, 2004 Dan Wetzel Yahoo! Sports Exclusive 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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 theirs 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. "

Classic case of the NCAA protecting it's prizes (meaning UNC and Duke)..

[Edited on March 11, 2006 at 10:51 PM. Reason : f]

3/11/2006 10:50:44 PM

^thanks...beat me to it.

3/11/2006 10:55:14 PM

Damn...now I remember hearing something about that.



Well, even if that did happen to Duke, they still would publicize that Duke knew nothing about it, so Coach K and the program are still clean. Plus, they got owned that year in the finals, so they would probably just assume get it wiped from the records

3/11/2006 11:03:04 PM

being an alabama fan all my life, this does not make me smile that they get off this leniant

3/11/2006 11:19:04 PM

considering that duke did nothing wrong, i don't see why its "lenient"

3/11/2006 11:30:35 PM

ohio state

3/11/2006 11:52:01 PM

jim o'brien, what?

3/12/2006 2:23:01 AM

^^^ well it comes down to do you hold the program accountable for bad players. Maggette was a part of the Duke program and he was an ineligible players. It doesn't matter that you or I think Duke did nothing wrong (and they really didn't) but it DID violate a NCAA rule and they SHOULD have all games he played in forfeited per NCAA rules.

Ohio State is in the same boat. We don't know that anyone in their actual basketball program knew that kid was getting favors from boosters.

NCAA rules are NCAA rules and they should be enforced whether you are SMU, Ohio State, Duke, UNC, or NCSU....

3/12/2006 9:56:41 AM