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.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if LSU's hearing is same date as CWW's but LSU will also not be receiving near the sanctions people claim will happen (no where near worst case scenario). So thanks Scott!

---

Why do you think its nowhere near the sanctions?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

because we fired him.

You Wade apologists are the fricking worse, just move the frick on.

quote:

---

You Wade apologists are the fricking worse, just move the frick on.

---

This reads like something told to an early 90s LSU football fan.

Who fricking cares, just move on.

quote:

---

CWW's hearing will be either late this week or early next week. He will not be receiving a show cause.

---

If he does will you come back here and apologize to everyone here?

FTR I hope he doesn't. I also hope he does not end up coaching in the SEC unless it is back at LSU.

quote:

---

The only reason that you are saying that is because the supporting document wasn't released. But do you really think all of these are just lucky guesses? That one violation regarding Naz's ex details the text message communications between the gf and Wade and specifies the account the check was written from and the exact amount. Plus they have follow up texts where the gf tried to hit Wade up for more money.

Do you really think the ex gf didn't supply all that?

Do you really think they have nothing to back up the other allegations completely unrelated to the wiretap? Just lucky guesses?

---

You really aren't connecting dots. Just because NCAA knows about a potential violation doesn't mean that it has information that can be used by the IARP to issue sanctions for that violation. The NCAA has heard the Dawkins tape like everyone else, but that doesn't mean it can be used by the IARP. It's not about luck.

Think of it like hearsay in court. We may know something happened because we were told by a reliable source; however, in court you cannot use that as evidence (subject to certain exceptions). Not saying the IARP is a court proceeding, I know it is not, however the comparison is the same. The IARP can only use evidence or information that is allowed under the NCAA bylaws.

Many of the allegations against Wade came from other coaches complaining (Leonard Hamilton is one for sure as it relates to Darius Days recruitment). Those coaches did not have first-hand information. It is likely the same with Cisse's recruitment that was part of the NOA. NCAA may have some information as to what happened, but its not information the IARP can use as a basis for sanctions.

As to the ex-girlfriend of a FORMER PLAYER, that information came directly from Wade's cell phone that he had to turn over. Here is the problem, paying a blackmail payment to the ex-girlfriend of a player that out of eligibility is not a violation of NCAA rules. From what I understand, this was from a player at VCU and not Naz Reid.

Again, I'm not saying the NCAA doesn't have some information that these things happened, but if he gets out with no show cause, it will be because the NCAA didn't have the right information that could be used by the IARP. There is a huge difference between these two things.

Anyone who believes that “WW was fired so football allegations would be swept under the rug” is a fool

quote:

---

This reads like something told to an early 90s LSU football fan.

Who fricking cares, just move on.

---

It happened, is not getting reversed. He's not coming back.

Not sure what analogy you are trying to make.

quote:

---

selfishly, the best thing timing wise would be for him to get a one year show cause so that McMahon could be given the good faith second year, after which Wade could be hired back unless significant improvements are made.

---

The best case to get Wade back at this point would be for him to get hired by smaller school for $500K a year or so and if he does well and CMM continues to fail in the next 2 years we hire him back for $3-4 million a year.

If he gets hired by an SEC or major conference school the likelihood of getting him back is almost zero. Heck, it's almost zero right now.

He never does, strictly fantasy with that guy.

quote:

---

Scott single handedly destroyed what CWW was building.

---

Ask yourself why would an AD want to destroy one of their athletic programs?

If your answer deviates from creating greater value, please explain why the deviation.

Greater value sometimes means eliminating negative value. WW on voice recorder and left text trail like an amateur during looming Title IX rumblings.

You may be underestimating what the AD had hanging over him.