re: Will Wade's Hearing Date

quote:

---

can't either.

In the NC St. case it was found an assistant coach gave a recruit $40k. It was also held he failed to cooperate in the investigation. The assistant coach got a 6 year show cause. The head coach got a one year show cause for "failure to monitor".

In the Louisville case assistant coaches were found to have arranged for improper benefits. Each assistant got a 2 years show cause.

In the Arizona case, assistant coach, Emmanuel Book, was found to have paid $40k to obtain a fraudulent HS transcript for a recruit. He was also found to has solicited and accepted $20k in bribes from shoe companies to steer a player to that company when the player turned pro. Book got a 10 year show cause! However, Sean Miller got nothing with respect to his failure to monitor allegation.

The NOA has more fact specific allegations against Wade that any of the NOAs relative to other head coaches. Generally, the HC's have been hit with "failure to monitor". So it seems hard to believe Book (Arizona) got 10 years; Mark Gottfried (NC State) got 1 year; and Wade will get nothing. I strongly suspect LSU will argue Wade was uncooperative with the university to save LSU from significant sanctions.

I have no evidence to refute the claims of the OP that Wade will get no sanctions. However, I remain skeptical of those claims unless the OP can share a little more evidence to support his very definitive claims

---

The difference is what information/evidence the IARP had that it could use under NCAA bylaws. In many of the cases mentioned above, there were coaches on staff who pled to federal crimes on the public record - that information can be used.

Remember the NCAA tried to get the DOJ to disclose its investigation material (that was not used during the public trial). The DOJ would not. The NCAA actually tried to intervene in the case to get the investigation files so that could use them for enforcement purposes. The Court said "no." Why do you think the NCAA was trying to intervene and get that information.

LINK

Wade didn't have any of that. In fact, the NCAA at one time admitted that the only thing it could do with the Dawkins tape was use it as a conversation starter with Wade. Why is that? The DOJ never released the tape, Dawkins' legal team leaked it - that makes the tape anonymous sourced information. IARP cannot use it as a basis for sanctions.

Looking at the specific allegations against Wade. One is that a payment was made by his wife to a 3rd party believed to be connected to a player. The IARP would need voluntary cooperation from the 3rd party or the player to issue sanctions - neither of those occurred. NCAA has no subpoena power, the only people that can be compelled are University employees/staff and current or prospective players. Thus, it is an allegation made by the NCAA, but it will not stick.

ETA. There is a reason the NOA had more fact specific allegations against Wade. The NCAA knew the case would not result in a show cause, so it wanted to make the NOA sound as bad as possible. Thus, when the Pat Forde's of the world talk about not punishing offenders, the NCAA can say we did everything in our power to punish, the IARP was out of our hands.

Totally agree. Im skeptical that he gets off without a show cause. And i say that as a big Wade fanboy