go iu bb

I just don't see anyone paying the Buzz Williams buyout. He's decent but not worth the $10M cost just to hire him.

Whatever, dude. Woodson was the coach when Sisley committed, ergo he's a Woodson recruit. I agree that he would have come regardless of who the coach was but facts are facts.

Yeah, Sisley is a Woodson recruit but not tainted by Woodson's "coaching" and "culture."

It looks like a raise to $675k and extension. I don't see an extension in this article, just the raise. Calls him the "de-facto general manager" at Bama. I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall or not: https://247sports.com/college/alabama/article/new-contract-details-released-for-alabama-football-staff-members-key-basketball-assistant-247833395/#:~:text=Preston Murphy%2C an assistant coach,will pay him %24675%2C000 annually. This one says there is an extension through the end of 2028. https://alabama.rivals.com/news/alabama-approves-new-contracts-for-over-a-dozen-staff-members-ryan-grubb

Pritchard was a Sampson recruit.

It's not as though he was in Indiana for a long time so it probably really doesn't mean much to him. A year and a half is a blip. I spent almost a year in Georgia and that state still isn't anything special to me.

I guess I'm rooting for BYU tonight. Since we're trying to get Preston Murphy as an assistant, I want 'Bama out of the tournament sooner rather than later.

lol, he definitely reads this board. Agreeing with him feels kind of gross. Or maybe I should say him agreeing with me. :)

To add on to my previous post: Another thing to keep in mind is that when these types of cases go to court, the athletes are actually arguing that the NCAA is hurting their livelihood by denying them eligibility in this way. So the NCAA is unfairly hurting their income with arbitrary and inconsistent rules like this. It doesn't go over well. For reference, see: the NCAA's recent court history

Another criterion is that the number of games played must be 30% or less. He played 10 of 26 games which is 38%. The issue with Goode is when the games were played since he played 10 of 33 (30%). The argument is that it is arbitrary and unfair to allow someone who plays 10 games at the beginning of the season to get another year while someone who plays the games after the first 1/2 of the season to not get a waiver. That in and of itself would be hard to defend in court but it looks untenable when football is taken into account where they can play 4 games at any time and maintain eligibility. I think Goode would have a very winnable case if it goes to court. I hope he does. I've always thought it was a stupid rule. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Guy Woodson brought in last year. He was a bench warmer at South Carolina State then transferred to IU. He wasn't expected to get minutes and that turned out to be the case (0 minutes played). His dad was in the NBA so I'm guessing Woodson brought him in as a favor to the dad.

As an SEC team, losing to them is basically the same thing as winning against them. That's what we learned this bowl season.

If he loses his job at Michigan and stays out of jail, maybe Todd Golden will bring him on as a "consultant."

Kind of like Gordon and Davis.

Did Domask actually sue? I really think the NCAA would lose if it went to court. Edit: he also played 10 out of 26 games. I'm not sure how that is a stronger case. Luke is under the 30% threshold just at the wrong time of year. Domask was over that threshold. So they would be making different arguments.

You did not say "should/will." You literally said "I don't think Luke should win" which is an opinion. If you meant "will" you should have used that instead.

On twitter a bunch of WVU fans were calling Tucker a coke head among other things. Yet people try to say IU fans are the problem. Yeah.

You should have just said in the first place that you just didn't want him to win. Your opinion, however, does not have an effect on the chances he would win a lawsuit against the NCAA. His chances of winning are very high, so high that the NCAA will probably grant him another year to avoid a lawsuit.

Which part? The football part is - they can play any 4 games and still redshirt. The NCAA doesn't have a great recent track record for winning lawsuits and part of the reason for that is how inconsistent they are in both their rules and enforcement. If they were to get sued in court by Goode, they'd almost certainly lose.

That is an excellent point. I was concentrating so hard on basketball I didn't stop to think about the football rules. No way they would win a lawsuit.

To add on to AH's reply, the reason the NCAA probably won't fight it is because there is a good chance they'd lose the lawsuit. Having to defend why 10 games played at the beginning of the season versus 10 games played at the end of the season is a losing proposition since that is an arbitrary distinction as both players miss the same amount of games. The NCAA is probably starting to recognize lawsuits they won't win.

He didn't play a second this year so he could get a redshirt if he wanted since he hasn't used his redshirt year. He also has a season where he played only 8 games so if Goode can get a waiver he should be able to as well.

Actual footage of the meeting with CDD. Only 3 words were spoken so it was quick.

It's still 6 days until April 1st. No way this guy is accurate. In the comments he does say maybe over 2 years. That account has a whopping 295 followers.