Question to everyone that says Will Wade cheated or violated NCAA rules

We beat Kentucky in year two of Wades reign. They won't be having that shite.

To me it is obvious he did or tried to give impermissible benefits. Yes, I'm taking what is weak circumstancial evidence, bridging an info gap, and making an assumption.

It's ok... I expect and want LSU coaches to do what is necessary in this corrupt system to win. And CWW is getting the results we wanted. If it wasn't for the admin creating no-win scenarios I'd be very happy with how this is setup. Looks very much like Wade could, maybe, escape with minor penalties due to that evidence being flimsy. Except our admins and compliance went the complete other direction.

But to answer your question: charged with impermissible benefits. No idea how many incidents. I'd start with Level I knowing 2 things:
1. If they circle the wagons (which we didn't) it is going to be tough
2. I, as the NCAA, do not have the burden of proof technically.

So with weak evidence working against me, the lack of need of burden of proof working for me I start with Level I and when they circle the wagons I drop them down a level, end up with minor penalties so I can claim I punished LSU and LSU can claim "see, it wasn't that big of a deal".

Except we didn't circle the wagons now did we?

quote:

---

Except we didn't circle the wagons now did we?

---

Has nothing to do with what WW may have done or did do, that was LSU administration panicking and caving in to national media pressure. Like one journalist saying LSU should not play in the NCAA tourney, when NC State, Louisville and Kansas have all been indicted in this investigation. Neither WW nor LSU have been indicted, yet the national media attacks them? Selective prosecution. I would tend to believe, to avoid a major lawsuit, the NCAA would need a lot more evidence than what they have in the wiretaps to justify in a court of law ruing a mans career. Regardless if there is no burden of proof. But, again, like I said, no one can tell me exactly what they would charge WW of unless they speculate, and not even the NCAA will rely on speculation and definitely not the FBI.

Lsu is about to get the death penalty.

quote:

---

I find it odd the NCAA wanted to listen in to WW's meeting with LSU officials but the FBI wasn't concerned.

---

why would that be odd?

discussing possible payouts to a player is against NCAA rules, not against the law.

so it makes total sense that the NCAA would want to listen in on petential rules violations. and the FBI could give two shits if you break your own organizations rules.

Unfortunately Wade got caught on tape. He has done nothing to clear himself. This is ALL on Wade because of the unfortunate leaked tape. We are trying to avoid massive probation. Why don’t you guys realize this.

We are unlikely to find out anything from WW testimony at trial. He is not on trial. No questions regarding WW behavior will be consider d relevant. In other words unless WW feels compell d to dump his guts on he stand to protest the everyone does it ...whatever.. the defense has an incentive to try to obfuscate Dawkins actions. ... no idea how WW or Sean Miller help Dawkins.

Yes I spoke to him on the phone about a recruit... I speak to lots of people about recruits. What next. Is the defense going to ask him if WW conspire with Dawkins to bribe recruits...why would they do that? Why would the defense expose WW to cross exam by FBI ... not happening.

Too many judges in the court of public opinion. They forget this all started over a very vague wiretap that the defense of an FBI case leaked. The NCAA and the FBI have NOTHING on Wade. And for that matter, neither does LSU which is why they are so hell bent on this meeting.

quote:

---

To me it is obvious he did or tried to give impermissible benefits. Yes, I'm taking what is weak circumstancial evidence, bridging an info gap, and making an assumption.

---

quote:

---

That statement should disqualify you for ever sitting on a jury.

---

Alas, I am not on a jury. I was asked my opinion on a message board. I gave it; with full disclosure of the lack of substantiation for my opinion.

I admitted I was taking a leap, that there was 'weak circumstanstial evidence', and that as an NCAA investigator I would go for Level 1 violations expecting to get Level 2 after all is said and done.

So what's your fricking issue? Too much of a real discussion for you? Not in line with what you want? Too bad. Suck it, I'm not giving you what you want.