Wooden allowed it to go on within his program. He knew, he just turned the other way. I'm not using the phrase generically, but rather specifically to what was going on and Wooden's lack of interest in controlling his program, for the sake of hanging banners and building his legacy.Gilbert wasn’t a great guy, by any definition. You still haven’t shown how he worked with Wooden or how it was used in recruiting. “Most” consider it valid not because they understand the facts or can tie the conduct of Gilbert to Wooden but rather because it’s a convenient narrative that points fingers without actually providing proof. “Lack of Institutional Control” is an NCAA phrase that is employed to underscore both the severity and volume of allegations, not some generic term as you seem to believe.
From the NCAA website:
A lack of institutional control is found when the Committee on Infractions determines that major violations occurred and the institution failed to display: Adequate compliance measures. Appropriate education on those compliance measures.
I believe what was going behind the scenes during the Wooden yrs at UCLA qualifies. When a head coach is aware that a major booster may be committing major violations, and said head coach chooses to look the other way, I would consider that within the descriptions listed above.
btw, when you say "Gilbert wasn't a great guy, by any definition", you mean a criminal, then we have found a common point we can agree upon.
You defend Wooden's legacy like a true Purdue fan. No real IU fan would go to these lengths to dispute these facts. They wouldn't care to. You're the only one on this board fighting for Wooden's clean legacy. I find the position you are taking to be very strange.
Last edited: