the banter on IC was that Lewter, very close to Blake, was found to have falsified transcripts. He decommitted and the school withdrew the scholly offer because they well...had to with the NC2A shining the bright lights on the chapel hill underbelly

12/1/2010 1:58:07 PM

So for the past few weeks there have been rumors that one of their big QB recruits (Marquis Williams) had decommited and was probably going to commit to Vtech. UNC people have been countering with, "well we like Golston better anyway"...who is another highly ranked QB out of Myrtle Beach.

Well Golson just decommited and is going to Notre Dame instead:

http://www.carolinalive.com/sports/story.aspx?id=549091

Quote :

"Golson was an early commitment to North Carolina during his junior year, but with NCAA sanctions looming, the Seahawks quarterback reopened his recruiting. He made an official visit to Notre Dame when the Fighting Irish upset Utah in November. "

One of the main reasons I've been wanting to see a little action with this story fairly soon is to fuck up this year's recruiting class for them...because it's been pretty damn strong so far.

But if Williams still decommits, then this puts them at losing 4 commitments in the past few weeks (three 4-stars and one 3-star).

12/2/2010 2:14:42 PM

Quote :

"Notre Dame when the Fighting Irish upset Utah in November."

i thought this sounded really strange and then realized that it's not strange at all. to emphasize this i looked up notre dame's season records and they haven't sustained any sort of decency since 1993.

i realize this is not news to anyone, but i didn't quite realize how bad they are.

12/2/2010 2:33:48 PM

^that is quite relevant to the topic

12/2/2010 2:44:42 PM

there hasn't been news in this thread for months.

12/2/2010 2:47:21 PM

haha... IC is proving yet again to be a gold-mine of delusion and then rantings after crushed hopes (not unlike many boards but even funnier because its them).

As the dude above said, over at IC they're just too proud of the fact that they had two 4* QB commits and it really didn't matter which one they lost, they "both definitely coming". hahahaha.

down in flames unc, down in flames...

[Edited on December 2, 2010 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2010 2:48:09 PM

I hope Golson wins the Heisman.

12/2/2010 2:51:30 PM

^ laughed so hard i farted.

Time for some "Pearls of Wisdom" from IC about the Golson decommit

Quote :

"Man, something is definitely going on here. Just doesn't make sense."

Quote :

"Well what i think is going on is the negative recruiting by schools because of the situation of the football program right now. I was really excited about EG, but now I hope he never wins a game."

Quote :

"Somebody got to the self-proclaimed "Tar Heel for life". That stinks. What the eff is going on here?????"

Quote :

"Really weak. To jump from UNC to ND in its current condition is just comical."

yea because UNCCheat, under the cloud of sanctions, scholly and post-season bans and an identical 7-5 record and repeat after me IC dumbasses: Notre Dame Footbal: the four horsemen, the gipper, rudy. UNC has marvin austin though

12/2/2010 2:56:59 PM

UNC has marvin austin Greg Little though

12/2/2010 6:20:26 PM

i see auburn and cam newton got away with the "we didn't know" defense


http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_football/story/8717823/

Quote :

" The NCAA ruled Wednesday that the Heisman favorite was unaware of the pay-for-play scheme concocted by his father, Cecil, and the owner of a scouting service. The NCAA declared Newton eligible to play for second-ranked Auburn Saturday against No. 18 South Carolina. The NCAA also took issue with comparisons made to the case involving Reggie Bush at Southern California, which was heavily punished for extra benefits received by the Heisman Trophy winner from two aspiring sports marketers. The NCAA said "If a student-athlete does not receive tangible benefits, that is a different situation from a student-athlete or family member who receives cash, housing or other benefits or knowingly competes and is compensated as a professional athlete.""

Quote :

"Within the span of two days, the NCAA notified Auburn of violations of amateurism rules, the school declared Newton ineligible, and then the governing body reinstated him, clearing Newton to compete without conditions."

sounds familiar...

12/2/2010 9:56:03 PM

man i almost feel sorry for UNC at this point with the wrath the NCAA is going to lay down on UNC to show that they are still all about the rules....

with however many players UNC has had ruled ineligible + the fact that the NCAA is receiving so much flack for the Cam Newton decision....

It's almost like i hope they bring down the hammer just to say hey we still mean bizzzness

12/2/2010 11:38:24 PM

I love that Cam got cleared. Its REALLY driving the unc-ch people crazy.

12/2/2010 11:50:36 PM

Quote :

"man i almostdon't feel sorry for UNC at this point with the wrath the NCAA is going to lay down on UNC to show that they are still all about the rules...."

12/2/2010 11:53:08 PM

^^ and 4^, I can see this is as a setup for the future to lax UNC's punishment.

12/3/2010 12:13:34 AM

Just on the face, it seems completely different. All of the UNC players received the benefits themselves. So they can't claim ignorance. Cam didn't get several hundred grand, his dad and uncle did.

The UNC players can claim ignorance to knowing whether or not someone was an agent, but they still accepted gifts. I guess they could also claim ignorance to their parents receiving jobs and houses as a result of their commitments. I just think it's going to be too much for them to skate by. And it's more than just one person.

12/3/2010 8:19:18 AM

Let's not lie to ourselves - we all know that there is no way on EARTH Cam Newton didn't know his Dad and Uncle were getting paid off of him.


NO WAY.

12/3/2010 8:26:47 AM

Quote :

"Let's not lie to ourselves - we all know that there is no way on EARTH Cam Newton didn't know his Dad and Uncle were getting paid off of him. NO WAY."

Sure, all you have to do is prove it with evidence. 3 UNC players have already been ruled permanently ineligible becuase they LIED to the NCAA, on multiple occasions. People have been overlooking that a lot lately. The NCAA doesn't take too kindly to lying. In the case of the tutors, there are emails directly implicating the tutor who wrote papers for the Einstein's playing ball over there. Deunta Williams admitted he received benefits on another person's credit card (and of course tried to play it off like he paid him back). Kendrick Burney and his father admitted he committed an honor court violation and also taking benefits. The university has admitted the tutor was let go for being "too close with the players" only to be hired personally by the HEAD COACH later. John Blake? Good lord, that would take hours to explain but the short of it is that it has been proven he worked with Wichard's company after he denied doing so.

With Cam Newton, the NCAA sees that his father shopped him around and cannot yet prove that Cecil took money. They also cannot prove what Cam knew. Auburn has a situation with one player, not half the football team. Yes Cam knew everything, but the NCAA cannot prove it....yet

12/3/2010 9:27:36 AM

who gives a shit about Cam Newton, the NCAA declared him eligible

this thread is about UNC's pathetic cheating program, no one else's

12/3/2010 9:49:51 AM

The aligation was that Cam's father shopped him around for $180k to Miss St. Not that they got paid $180k. So no one actually took any benefits in this case.

Or have I missed something?

12/3/2010 9:53:38 AM

from what I have read, in the case of a player (or those close to the player) shopping themselves attempting to get money, it doesnt matter if there is an actual transaction. The act of trying to get paid = ineligible

12/3/2010 9:58:46 AM

Quote :

"The aligation was that Cam's father shopped him around for $180k to Miss St. Not that they got paid $180k. So no one actually took any benefits in this case."

Quote :

"aligation"

You're not missing anything, but the solicitation by itself is a big rules violation (although apparently not that big, considering the NCAAs actions).

There are two possibilities here (assuming the NCAA acts on UNC anytime soon):

1) They've tasted the sting from the backlash of their decision to declare Newton eligible. In an attempt to wipe some of the egg from their faces as they get to the bottom of that situation, they hammer UNC hard to send a message that the rules do matter.

2) They follow suit with the same sort of logic that will allow Newton to play this weekend: Butch, Baddour, and the rest of UNC has some amount of plausible deniability for everything that happened. With Blake out, and UNC taking a few self-imposed penalties, combined with the few suspensions that were handed down, the NCAA will declare that UNC merely had a "few isolated problems," that there was no LIC, and that proper punishment has already been meted out this season.

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/3/2010 10:02:21 AM

The best part of the Newton case is how quickly it was resolved. That's really gotta chap the asses of Carolina fans. Seems like they're up in arms more over the length of the investigation rather than the potential findings.

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason : chapping, asses, gay joke, I know it's coming]

12/3/2010 10:04:54 AM

Quote :

"from what I have read, in the case of a player (or those close to the player) shopping themselves attempting to get money, it doesnt matter if there is an actual transaction. The act of trying to get paid = ineligible"

That is correct. You don't have to receive money, but the rules said trying to solicit money was enough to be a violation.

Which is why this makes no sense and goes against the Reggie Bush findings. Reggie could say "I didn't know how my parents were affording the rent on that house"

12/3/2010 10:21:38 AM

Quote :

"The best part of the Newton case is how quickly it was resolved."

I don't think its over with. I think it pretty much went like this: NCAA had to find something to rule him ineligible up to that point, and they couldn't. Three years down the road, Reggie Bush style, they could put Auburn on probation after all of their findings. There is just nothing right now to justify ineligibility.

12/3/2010 10:31:42 AM

Quote :

"UNC taking a few self-imposed penalties,"

UNC has already publicly stated that they aren't going to self impose any penalties.

^^There's an interesting thing that the NCAA can in these situations, and that's decide what they want to believe is true based on the evidence. So the NCAA doesn't need solid proof that Cam Newton was aware of his father's dealings, they just need some believable implications to that extent. Also, with Reggie Bush's parents living in a house he knew they couldn't afford, the NCAA can make assumptions about what was going on in that program based on implications throughout and just decide, "yeah, you knew. PENALTIES."


[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ^'s]

12/3/2010 10:36:33 AM

Quote :

"from what I have read, in the case of a player (or those close to the player)"

Well there's certainly no gray area here

Quote :

"Which is why this makes no sense and goes against the Reggie Bush findings. Reggie could say "I didn't know how my parents were affording the rent on that house""

You obviously forgot about the part where Reggie had rims, stereo system, etc etc. added to his car which Lloyd Lake paid in total. Lake also recorded phone conversations with Bush's father and the father directly implicates his son in the whole ordeal, this = bad news for USC. Just because Reggie's parents took benefits well in excess of 6 figures doesn't erase the five figures Reggie took. In fact, the only findings the NCAA has dealt with at UNC is 13K for Marvin, 6k for Burney, 6k for Quinn, and 4k for D. Williams, can't remember what Little's number was. Reggie Bush himself took more than that and his parents, well, blew all these numbers out of the water combined.

Newton hasn't been proven to take one penny, nor has his father. Has he been proven to solicit, yes, without Cam's knowledge (up to this point).

Pat Haden, USC, and the 3 amigos at UNC are comparing apples to oranges when compairing their situations to Auburn's. Each are trained to look out for their unveristy's best interest facts notwithstanding. Until there is a paper trail of money Newton is eligible. Otherwise, 80% of D1 athetles would be ineligible if part of their posse soliciting benefits could potentially get them in trouble.

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

12/3/2010 11:08:13 AM

LOL whatever WRAL editor is reading this thread, i salute you sir

just posted 12 mins ago

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/8720796/

Quote :

"If you bought stock in NCAA investigations prior to the 2010 calendar year, your retirement is just about taken care of. And, for the longest time, North Carolina fans have been claiming that the relatively light punishment handed down to Rich Rodriguez' Michigan program was a good sign for Butch Davis and UNC because they couldn't attach responsibility directly to the head coach. Really, why would the head coach know anything about the time his players were required to spend on football matters? It's just practice right? But, that's what the NCAA said; the head coach didn't know. According to the facts the NCAA has at their fingertips today, the same holds true for Auburn University and their future Heisman Trophy winning quarterback, Cam Newton. Even though the NCAA allows for the fact that his father, with the help of a "recruiting service director", offered to have Cam sign with the Bulldogs in exchange for $180,000, there's no evidence that says his son nor Auburn University, his current school, were aware of the solicitation, and therefore it's okay. Heretofore, this will be known as the "I didn't know" defense. You didn't know? Well then, okay, nothing to see here. Move along. For those of you who bore my wrath for suggesting that Butch Davis and North Carolina were in the clear because this was just John Blake acting as a rogue assistant and players accepting the benefits from unscrupulous agents and that Davis "didn't know", I apologize. I apologize for the things I've said about UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp's notion that Davis was unaware of the scope of the wrongdoing and therefore should not be held accountable for any sanctions. I was wrong. If you "don't know", you "don't know". Some say that this doesn't open the proverbial Pandora's Box, and you're right: it obliterates it. It's now a pile of Pandora's Dust, and here's why: The NCAA has declared that there is no penalty whatsoever for a father peddling his son's athletic services to a school in exchange for money -- above and beyond the scholarship -- as long as the athlete is unaware of the request. In other words, as long as the player says "I didn't know", it's all gravy. For the record, according to the bylaws of the NCAA and the SEC, knowledge of the violation is immaterial. The violation itself renders the athlete ineligible to play -- anywhere. Both bodies have simply chosen to ignore them, for what reasons we will probably never really know. My gosh, is there an easier defense in the world than "I didn't know", especially when the body in charge of policing the alleged violation has ZERO power to subpoena witnesses? NCAA: "Coach Headinthesand, did you know that your star player's been seen driving a Range Rover from a local car dealership?" Coach Headinthesand: "I didn't know" NCAA: Cool, thanks coach. Good luck in the Knowledge is Power But No Knowledge is Safety Bowl. Should the player be responsible for his parent's actions? Absolutely! Just like parents are responsible for the actions of their children. But, this wasn't some leech of a 3rd cousin trying to siphon cash at the expense of someone else's talent. This is the father! This is the father, in whom the son -- the player -- placed all the power of the college choice. It's not like Reverend Cecil Newton is some deadbeat dad without any relationship with his son. Cam said, "I'll go wherever you tell me to go, pop." NCAA: "Cam, did you know your dad asked Mississippi State for $180,000 during your recruitment?" Cam Newton: "No sir." NCAA: "Auburn University officials, were you aware that Cecil Newton asked Mississippi State for $180,000 during his recruitment to that school?" Auburn University official: "No, we weren't." NCAA: "Good luck against South Carolina, War Eagle. Does this type of thing happen all the time? Likely, but if it didn't, there is simply no reason it shouldn't now that the NCAA has granted legitimacy to "I didn't know." Get Dick Baddour on the phone, start denying everything. I wonder if that works with speeding tickets?"

12/3/2010 11:56:29 AM

Nice

12/3/2010 12:23:57 PM

hey everybody, those 2 blue chip QB recruits didn't decommit because of the NCAA investigation, they decommitted because Bryn Renner is the "chosen one" and they didn't want to compete.


seriously, a unc friend posted something almost exactly like this on facebook. it makes me laugh so much.

12/3/2010 12:28:17 PM

Witchard suspended

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/story/8723763/

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM. Reason : Sus]

12/3/2010 5:43:46 PM

I hope he isn't wearing pink because of breast cancer...I'd hate to see Anchorman lose his marvelous jugs

Quote :

"The length of the suspension means Wichard will not be able represent potential clients for the 2011 NFL Draft."

bwahahaha...so now when guys like MA and Little and Quinn sign...it wont be with Wichard

hahahahahahahah

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2010 6:03:06 PM

^but they can switch after their rookie year

12/3/2010 6:09:19 PM

yeah true...still though...hahaha

also if they switched after one year, would their agent this year get all the agent money from the rookie contract? or would that transfer hypothetically to wichard for the remaining years of the rookie contract?

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2010 6:10:39 PM

he would miss out on the signing bonus and at least the first year of the contract plus more depending on the agreement with their first agent

12/3/2010 6:31:33 PM

this thread is still going?

12/3/2010 6:37:14 PM

Greg Little signed to Octagon - which if you'll recall, was the company that gave Joe Forte's mom a job.

12/4/2010 10:08:42 AM

^ I remember Brakk posting something about octagon several months ago.

12/4/2010 1:23:49 PM

http://www.wchl1360.com/details3.html?id=16746
bump

12/6/2010 11:17:12 AM

she got paid hush money. of course she will back. this is nothing new.

12/6/2010 11:20:13 AM

Ok, so if there are no NCAA sanctions (unlikely?) they seem to be trying to save Butch's Job.

question: How many times has a coach been involved with Academic and Play/Agent suspensions, and kept their job at that school?

Now, if there are NCAA sanctions (short of USC type) How many Coaches have Kept their Job?

and i guess that goes for AD's too. (basketball or Football).


If they don't get USC sanctions or any for that matter, i'd be flabbergasted. because i believe this is the first ever Coach the is basically an agent, regardless who knew what.

12/6/2010 11:32:18 AM

Obviously her press release will have a huge impact on the NCAA investigations, despite her refusal to cooperate with the investigators.

Such an obvious UNC-CH PR move. I'm sure she just decided to issue a statement supporting BD on her own, without any bribery/pressure.

I wouldn't be surprised if this statement is enough "evidence" for UNC's self-investigations to find BD innocent.

12/6/2010 11:38:32 AM

I'm afraid that in the end UNC will some how pulled a Cam Newton out of all this.

12/6/2010 11:45:06 AM

Quote :

"Wiley’s comments jive with"

lol noobs

12/6/2010 11:50:58 AM

Quote :

"TUTOR NOT CREDIBLE"

12/6/2010 12:34:17 PM

I just don't understand how the tutor is allowed to not cooperate, but the athletes, etc. have to hand over cell phones, bank statements, blah blah blah on command. She's a part of the program by extension, so why shouldn't she be subject to the same?

12/6/2010 12:36:52 PM

She has no official relationship with UNC. The NCAA has zero jurisdiction on her. If, down the road, there is some sort of legal investigation, that changes everything, but right now, she has no obligation to the NCAA.

Similarly, I'm fairly sure UNC fired blake pretty quickly to eliminate the chance that he'd be compelled to talk by the NCAA.

Also, it's worth noting that her lawyer is Joe Cheshire, whose other clients include Mike Easley. I wonder who's footing the bill for Jennifer Wiley?

Additionally, given what she said, why was a lawyer required at all, and why did she wait so long to say what she did? What has changed between then and now?

This shit reeks.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2010 12:49:41 PM

^ good questions. paging yahoo sports.

12/6/2010 1:00:17 PM

Quote :

"I just don't understand how the tutor is allowed to not cooperate, but the athletes, etc. have to hand over cell phones, bank statements, blah blah blah on command. She's a part of the program by extension, so why shouldn't she be subject to the same?"

just a small clarification, but the ncaa doesn't technically have authority over the athletes to hand over cell phone and bank records either. they just probably threaten ineligibility with a refusal to do so. in the case of the tutor, even if she were still part of the university, they (the ncaa) can't threaten her with anything because she's not an athlete

12/6/2010 8:14:23 PM

i hear she was quite the sport-fucker, though

12/6/2010 8:19:34 PM

her and a lot of other bitches i'm sure

12/6/2010 8:22:14 PM