http://www.greensboro.com/sports/accxtra...b372a.html

If it turns out that there were also Duke and UNC players who got paid, will we ask the same question about those schools? Or do we give them a pass because they are more highly thought of for reasons that have nothing to do with athletics?

UNC isn't highly thought of now -they printed diplomas for Pete sake

It is disheartening to try to brand yourself as the academic high road in comparison to the SEC and then you have Miami, UNC, and Louisville cheat as hard as UGA or Auburn or Bama ever thought about cheating.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-27-2017 07:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  If it turns out that there were also Duke and UNC players who got paid, will we ask the same question about those schools? Or do we give them a pass because they are more highly thought of for reasons that have nothing to do with athletics?

Who knows, It could be an indication of the general atmosphere in which we now live or it could just be revealing an unstated bias against Louisville by the writer of the article (but some editor decided to publish it on the front page of the Sports section).

Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

(09-27-2017 07:46 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It is disheartening to try to brand yourself as the academic high road in comparison to the SEC and then you have Miami, UNC, and Louisville cheat as hard as UGA or Auburn or Bama ever thought about cheating.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using CSNbbs mobile app

Didn't GT just sign with Adidas & pick up a commitment from a top player?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These truly are great days for sports writers. I remember not long ago a writer degrading UofL about the WF situation only to find, after the self righteous indignation, that one of his schools did the same.
This truly is defining days for the "Press"

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Despite its high profile in basketball, Louisville was added for one reason: football. If it was about basketball, the ACC would have added UConn -- not because UConn is better than UL, but because UConn is similar in basketball but with much stronger academics.

(09-27-2017 08:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Despite its high profile in basketball, Louisville was added for one reason: football. If it was about basketball, the ACC would have added UConn -- not because UConn is better than UL, but because UConn is similar in basketball but with much stronger academics.

I disagree that it was solely about football.

It was really about bringing in a well-rounded athletics program and Louisville fit the bill moreso than anyone else. Being really good in football was a factor as was having an elite mens basketball program, but Louisville has long pumped money into sports across the board. They brought successful baseball and soccer programs (M & W) too.

(09-27-2017 08:46 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Despite its high profile in basketball, Louisville was added for one reason: football. If it was about basketball, the ACC would have added UConn -- not because UConn is better than UL, but because UConn is similar in basketball but with much stronger academics.

I disagree that it was solely about football.

It was really about bringing in a well-rounded athletics program and Louisville fit the bill moreso than anyone else. Being really good in football was a factor as was having an elite mens basketball program, but Louisville has long pumped money into sports across the board. They brought successful baseball and soccer programs (M & W) too.

It was football. More precisely, to appease the schools like FSU and Clemson. Something along the lines of, "You got Syracuse and Pitt, we get Louisville."

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

That is an editorial in a local newspaper. No quotes or comments from anybody at any ACC school. No quotes or comments from the ACC. Well, there was the generic,

Quote:An ACC spokesperson chose not to comment, saying the decision to bring Louisville into the ACC was a decision made by the school presidents. The vote was unanimous.

I'm not saying the big wigs aren't saying things behind closed doors but it is a quantum leap from that editorial to saying the ACC has buyers remorse.

(09-27-2017 08:46 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Despite its high profile in basketball, Louisville was added for one reason: football. If it was about basketball, the ACC would have added UConn -- not because UConn is better than UL, but because UConn is similar in basketball but with much stronger academics.

I disagree that it was solely about football.

It was really about bringing in a well-rounded athletics program and Louisville fit the bill moreso than anyone else. Being really good in football was a factor as was having an elite mens basketball program, but Louisville has long pumped money into sports across the board. They brought successful baseball and soccer programs (M & W) too.

They BOUGHT successful baseball and soccer programs. I fixed it for you

(09-27-2017 08:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Despite its high profile in basketball, Louisville was added for one reason: football. If it was about basketball, the ACC would have added UConn -- not because UConn is better than UL, but because UConn is similar in basketball but with much stronger academics.

So you don't think this issue (not talking just UL or the schools mentioned) expands beyond basketball? I fully expect this thing to balloon when the coaches and adidas exec starts singing.

(09-27-2017 08:28 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Didn't GT just sign with Adidas & pick up a commitment from a top player?

Hey, he hasn't signed a LOI!

And GT isn't wearing Adidas for another year. And GT doesn't engage in this sort of behavior. If you see a flood of 5* neanderthals who can't write an essay paper suddenly committing to GT left and right we can re-evaluate.

NC State is an adidas school. They recruited a lot better under Gottfried. New coach (who worked under Pitino) now so who knows? It won't be limited to the adidas schools though.

And I thought Pitino was a honest guy. I'm shocked by the news today.

(09-27-2017 08:17 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  Buyers remorse... Looks like the question asked a couple of years ago has been answered.

Humble Brag by Mr. Walker

(09-27-2017 09:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:28 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Didn't GT just sign with Adidas & pick up a commitment from a top player?

Hey, he hasn't signed a LOI!

And GT isn't wearing Adidas for another year. And GT doesn't engage in this sort of behavior. If you see a flood of 5* neanderthals who can't write an essay paper suddenly committing to GT left and right we can re-evaluate.

GTech you aren't doing it right.

We all need to learn from UK and the $EC in general how to do this the correct way.

I am going to try and avoid the stone throwing here mainly because "those in the know" have been saying this happens all the time to a certain extent and in varying degrees/methods (not necessarily this specific method the FBI focused on), especially in what is now known as the P5 grouping, and has probably been heightened by the fact that the NBA stopped taking kids directly out of high school.

I saw one poster on another board sum it up along these lines (again for the P5 and including other methods such as hiring the kid's parent as a college employee *wink**wink*):

about 1% - don't do this at all

about 69% - have done it infrequently, maybe once every 5-6 years

about 29% - do it frequently, at least twice every 3-4 years

about 1% - do it virtually annually but do it so well they will likely never get caught doing it

Where does your school fall or where do you think they fall?

I am not naive enough to believe that SU is in the 1% that don't do it all. I hope we are at worse in the 69% that have only done it infrequently.

I suspect the fact that we were under a sustained 10-year NCAA investigation may have kept us from doing this particular issue during this specific FBI investigation. One might say it didn't prevent Louisville from getting their hands caught in the cookie jar, but then I suspect the Cards, at least in terms of CBB, falls in the 29% based upon what has been revealed so far.

I don't think this is particularly stone-throwing since the Cards, again as I see it, are in a unique situation from SU. After all the Orange aren't competing directly against an in-state rival that in my mind falls in the latter 1% category of doing it so well they will likely never get caught on any of the various methods they have developed over time. Not saying that excuses the behavior, it just helps to explain why they might feel the pressure more so than others.

Just my thoughts, could be proven totally wrong.

Cheers,
Neil