(12-14-2016 09:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 09:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 09:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You can get somewhat of an idea by watching game film but unless you are dedication long, long hours of study to each opponent you'll be hard pressed to chart out what plays are called for when, and you will not learn how they plan to attack your OLB who's prone to over pursuing and taking himself out of plays, or how they plan to disguise their pass coverages to fool your QB who has trouble reading coverages pre-snap. It's far more than knowing what play they run, it helps you know not only the plays but when and why they are going to run them.

Accessing a gameplan can also serve as a "self-scouting" session. If they state that your team has the tendency of throwing middle screens on second and long when you are deep in your own territory that's information you can use to gain an advantage. The situation comes up and they call a scheme to combat the screen and you do something else and gain the first down.

According to what little information WF has put out & by UL comments we aren't talking about the entire playbook. As stated by both sides it was a few plays in which WF hasn't (& didn't) run during any games. Adding a few plays is barely going to have any kind of an effect on your game planning. WF would lose the element of surprise.

Everything I have read on this states it was a playsheet, which is significantly more than "just a couple plays". Playsheets are where you have charted out how you are going to approach specific situations. It will have your play options for various situations....on second and eight these are your options, third and three, etc. Individual plays aren't really that helpful because unless you line up in a specific formation just for that play you have to decide which play out of several you are going to defend. Another way that playsheets can be valuable is the fact that a lot of teams put their signal plan for that specific game on them for sending in the call.

You should read more. I suggest reading Tom Jurich's statement.

With everything that has gone on in your crooked athletic department this past year Tom Jurich isn't exactly a trustworthy source in my opinion. He's going to say whatever he can to avoid yet another black-eye for Louisville in a year full of them.

Bronco said none of his assistants had been contacted. You should feel relieved.

"That's Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Syracuse, Virginia and Virginia Tech from the ACC. That's Army, Delaware, Elon, Gardner-Webb, Indiana, Louisiana-Monroe, Notre Dame, Tulane and Utah State from the nonconference schedule."

(12-14-2016 09:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  "That's Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Syracuse, Virginia and Virginia Tech from the ACC. That's Army, Delaware, Elon, Gardner-Webb, Indiana, Louisiana-Monroe, Notre Dame, Tulane and Utah State from the nonconference schedule."

CNN said they investigated themselves thoroughly.

(12-14-2016 07:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:12 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Indiana and Army also had former Wake assistants that worked with Elrod.

TBH, both of those teams beat Wake, and both were head scratchers to me. Perhaps this explains how they won? Though I tend to think Army wouldn't cheat like that (it's not like they are under that much pressure to win, either).

I don't know... the whole thing is VERY strange.

Army is 7-5 this year and has played quite well in our wins. Ask Temple and Navy, both very good teams. I watched the whole of that game.i didn't notice anything suspicious.

Pressure to win? There are a lot of ghosts at West Point and Monken needed to win that one but that doesn't mean Army took advantage out of intelligence, just that we have a desire to win.

Elrod offered info to Army. No idea if they used it, but even if they didn't they failed to inform Wake that Elrod offered it to them.

(12-14-2016 11:38 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Elrod offered info to Army. No idea if they used it, but even if they didn't they failed to inform Wake that Elrod offered it to them.

So?

Doesn't West Point make a pretty big deal about its honor code?

(12-14-2016 11:58 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Doesn't West Point make a pretty big deal about its honor code?

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I don't see the violation if we did use the information. It was willingly given. We didn't steal it, it was offered. Or lie to receive it or chest to grab it.

If I steal a tv and give it to you when you know the tv was stolen, are you not guilty of stealing?

People are forgetting that Wake is the guilty party here

(12-15-2016 12:16 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  If I steal a tv and give it to you when you know the tv was stolen, are you not guilty of stealing?

Not guilty of stealing. Receiving stolen property is a separate crime. Criminal conspiracy may also be in play here.

(12-15-2016 12:09 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 11:58 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Doesn't West Point make a pretty big deal about its honor code?

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I don't see the violation if we did use the information. It was willingly given. We didn't steal it, it was offered. Or lie to receive it or chest to grab it.

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I hate to do this because of family connections with US Army, but accepting stolen data sounds like tolerating those who steal. Of course, this is based upon the assumption that a football coach at West Point did receive the information that Elford was passing to Wake's opponents. An assumption that has yet to be verified.

(12-15-2016 05:55 AM)rednblackattack Wrote:  People are forgetting that Wake is the guilty party here

Wut? Wake was a victim of trusting a former Wake Forest football player (who was also a former Graduate Assistant on the Wake Forest Football Team, former Assistant Coach, and until recently, an employee of a company with ties to Wake Forest). Heck, it was Wake Forest who helped him find a nice job in addition to the IMG position. How in the heck is Wake Forest guilty in this scenario?

(12-15-2016 05:55 AM)rednblackattack Wrote:  People are forgetting that Wake is the guilty party here

In Bizarro World perhaps.

the talking point that Wake did not use any of the plays as a mediating factor fails to consider:


Mark Schlabach Verified account
‏@Mark_Schlabach

WF coaches scrapped "special" plays after finding diagrams of them left behind by UL at walk-through day before game in Louisville




Wake could not chance running any of the plays because they knew the info was leaked.

(12-15-2016 09:05 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:09 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 11:58 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Doesn't West Point make a pretty big deal about its honor code?

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I don't see the violation if we did use the information. It was willingly given. We didn't steal it, it was offered. Or lie to receive it or chest to grab it.

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I hate to do this because of family connections with US Army, but accepting stolen data sounds like tolerating those who steal. Of course, this is based upon the assumption that a football coach at West Point did receive the information that Elford was passing to Wake's opponents. An assumption that has yet to be verified.

This is my understanding.... Say a Cadet has a copy of an exam. He didn't steal it. Someone may have given it to him or he may have just found it. If he doesn't report it, he is in violation of the Honor Code. Even if he is not taking the course the exam applies to. If he uses that exam in any way (sells it, gives it to someone to use, uses it to prep for the exam, or whatever) that is a whole other level of Honor Code violation.

In football terms... Say a Cadet has a copy of a playbook. He didn't steal it. Someone may have given it to him or he may have just found it. If he doesn't report it, he is in violation of the Honor Code. Even if he is not a player, coach or staff. If he uses that exam in any way (sells it, gives it to someone to use, uses it to prep for the game, or whatever) that is a whole other level of Honor Code violation.

(12-15-2016 12:09 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 11:58 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Doesn't West Point make a pretty big deal about its honor code?

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

I don't see the violation if we did use the information. It was willingly given. We didn't steal it, it was offered. Or lie to receive it or chest to grab it.

I wonder if the Superintendent of the Academy would see it your way.

Clearly the MOST reprehensible person is Elrod.

Likewise, if someone accepted and use the stolen information, that is also reprehensible.

What people seem to be debating is if someone who merely KNOWS about a dishonest act (but doesn't actually take advantage of it personally) is morally obligated to report it. That's a tough one, and could vary depending on circumstances.

At one extreme, would a German citizen in WWII have been morally obligated to report someone who lied about being a Jew?

On the other hand, which of you knows someone who has broken the speed limit and failed to report them?

I get the defense of Wake Forest - they are a long-time "little brother" of the ACC - but it isn't nearly as clear cut as people here are making it out to be, IMO.

It's pretty clear cut.

(12-15-2016 01:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  It's pretty clear cut.

Ever play a copyrighted YouTube video that wasn't uploaded by the rightful owner? Did you report it?