I've was of the opinion that Wade is going to be hit hard with a lengthy show cause similar to that received by some of the assistant coaches from the FBI/DOJ fallout. However, seeing Miller (who was on wiretap as well) get nothing and Hardaway only get a very minimal penalty, that opinion has lessened. I think Wade MAY still get a small show-cause. But the fact he has been hired by a new program (even if it is McNeese and even if the AD is his buddy) makes be believe he was confident before the hire no "show-cause" was coming.

As for LSU, I always thought (and still think) the sanctions will be minimal. They fired Wade to allow them to throw Wade under the bus and save the program from harsh sanctions. Plus, the IARP has shown a proclivity to not want to punish players/coaches (i.e. McMahon and the current team) for the "sins" of other players/coaches.

If Wade's penalties are light, then the argument could be made Woodward torched the basketball program for no reason. It also means Wade won't be staying in Lake Charles long. He'll be looking for a bigger job immediately.

If Wade gets hammered and LSU doesn't get much, then I think you can say (at least in part) LSU firing Wade had a hand in saving the program from significant sanctions.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ellessuuuu

Member since Sep 2004

8880 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 9:13 am to Alt26

quote:
If Wade's penalties are light, then the argument could be made Woodward torched the basketball program for no reason. It also means Wade won't be staying in Lake Charles long. He'll be looking for a bigger job immediately.

If Wade gets hammered and LSU doesn't get much, then I think you can say (at least in part) LSU firing Wade had a hand in saving the program from significant sanctions.

I've said since day 1, if the IARP stays within in the bounds of the NCAA Committee on Infractions Bylaws, Wade will get minimum punishment. Unlike when the Committee on Infractions made these rulings (and only complied with the bylaws when convenient), the IARP seems to actually stay within those bounds.

I could see scenario where Armstrong gets hit pretty hard. I think it is a little telling that Armstrong did not follow Wade to McNeese. Although he seems to be in a good spot at Link Academy.

ETA. I do believe Woodward threw the NCAA a nugget by firing Wade in the manner in which he did. Partially because the NCAA was never going to get Wade with a hefty punishment (that is why the NCAA published multiple letters making strong allegations against Wade) and partially because Woodward and Wade bumped heads early and often.

The way the NCAA tried to try this case through the media tells you all you need to know. Even when the NCAA made the referral to the IARP, it read like a federal court indictment. None of the other referral letters looked like this. This was done knowing the letter would be made public. Now, when the IARP doesn't do much, the NCAA can say it was out of our hands and we are doing away with the IARP. Lots of PR at work here.

This post was edited on 6/22/23 at 9:17 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by nicholastiger

Member since Jan 2004

50450 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 9:34 am to ellessuuuu

LSU was in a catch 22 as well
Wade lawyered up and threatened to sue and LSU had no basis or had no access to the evidence especially the FBI info
Wade could have sued LSU and the NCAA for wrongful termination
If you fire Wade and nothing comes of it, you are looking at a major lawsuit
If you keep him, suspend him to pacify the NCAA until they complete their work than that helps mitigate things
That's why they reworded the contract and once the NCAA dropped the NOA they were off the hook from a legal standpoint and could get rid of Wade with no repercussions
LSU had no idea it would take IARP so long to finish

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by budlight34

Baton Rouge

Member since Oct 2005

1154 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 9:35 am to ellessuuuu

Once this is over whatever will that Frankenstein forehead of pat forde do with himself.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ForeverLSU5

Member since Mar 2019

2059 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 9:42 am to bubbz

Will Wade will not be getting any significant penalties, not sure about LSU but I know CWW will not be getting a show cause or anything of that magnitude

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ellessuuuu

Member since Sep 2004

8880 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 10:06 am to nicholastiger

quote:
LSU was in a catch 22 as well
Wade lawyered up and threatened to sue and LSU had no basis or had no access to the evidence especially the FBI info
Wade could have sued LSU and the NCAA for wrongful termination
If you fire Wade and nothing comes of it, you are looking at a major lawsuit
If you keep him, suspend him to pacify the NCAA until they complete their work than that helps mitigate things
That's why they reworded the contract and once the NCAA dropped the NOA they were off the hook from a legal standpoint and could get rid of Wade with no repercussions
LSU had no idea it would take IARP so long to finish

Not exactly. Wade did not lawyer up for the purposes of suing LSU. He had a criminal attorney because he had been subpoenaed to testify at the Dawkins' trial. He wasn't going to sue LSU because that would lead to discovery and give the school and/or the NCAA an open door of discovery (far more power than the NCAA has during the investigation process). It is the same reason no coach ever sues the NCAA or their former school.

The other lawyer he hired was an attorney that specializes in NCAA investigations (also represented Pearl and Sean Miller). He did that to help avoid a long show cause, since being a college coach is his profession.

It is important to remember that as long as Wade was employed by LSU, the school and Wade's interest were aligned, i.e. avoid getting hit with sanctions and a show cause. Oddly enough, those interest are still somewhat aligned - although now from different perspectives.

Wade was fired because Woodward did not want him there, as an additional incentive, he got to throw the NCAA a "win" that it needed to save face after the Dawkins tape leaked.

This post was edited on 6/22/23 at 10:08 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by WildTchoupitoulas

Member since Jan 2010

44071 posts

Posted on 6/22/23 at 10:58 am to lsupride87