Their government's success was played out during the season when brothers Kareem and JaRon Rush and Andre Williams were suspended by the NCAA for taking money from Piggie.

Corey Maggette has said publicly he did not take any money from Myron Piggie while playing at Duke.(AP)

Now former Duke player Corey Maggette has been subpoenaed for a Wednesday hearing that might lead to NCAA sanctions against Duke. Maggette might testify under oath that he took $2,000 from Piggie. Such an admission would mean Duke played an ineligible player (Maggette) during the 1999 NCAA Tournament.

Duke could lose face and more than $220,000 in tournament revenue.

But that might not be the end of it. The overall story won't go away. In subpoenaing Maggette, the feds are looking to extend Piggie's sentence. He is already in prison for three to five years after having pled guilty to a conspiracy charge.

But what is this all about, really? Go to any major basketball hotbed in the country -- Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago -- and there are Piggies scattered over the landscape like cockroaches on a kitchen floor.

And they are slicker, quicker and more discreet with their money.

There are those that still wonder what the ultimate purpose is of putting away Piggie, a low-level figure in the summer league feeding chain.

"The fundamental question is will it end with Myron Piggie?" said a Kansas City lawyer familiar with the case. "The speculation is it might not. I don't know what is their agenda or motives are outside prosecuting Myron Piggie aggressively or perhaps going after something else.

"Why are they going after Maggette? You've got an admission (of guilt) from Piggie. Are you tightening up your case? You've got a tight case anyway."

Does Nike, which promised Piggie a $400,000 deal during his time as an influential summer league coach, have something to worry about? Nike officials have repeatedly said no.

To add to the intrigue, there might not even be a hearing Wednesday. SportsLine.com reported Friday that federal officials said Maggette might not have to testify at all.

"We may be able to get what we're after through other means (other than a hearing)," said Chris Whitley, the district court spokesman.

One source speculated that to avoid the embarrassment of open court, Maggette might simply sign an affidavit instead of testifying in court. The NCAA supposedly could then use the document to further its case against Duke via paper trail.

"There are other agendas here now," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said last month. "Let's not be naïve about that. When you're trying to prosecute somebody and get a maximum sentence, exposure is good. Let's be realistic. To condemn Corey would be a mistake."

Duke is pleading ignorant to knowledge of any misdeeds by Maggette. Duke associate athletic director Chris Kennedy is planning to fly to Kansas City to give the school's side of the story. Nevermind that Duke isn't in any legal trouble. In what has become a trend rather than a rarity, the NCAA is relying on federal prosecutors to make its case.

Maggette has refused to be interviewed by school officials about the case. The NCAA can't compel him to talk because he is a professional. Maggette testified to a grand jury late last year but that testimony was sealed. He has said publicly that he did not take the money.

What is the ultimate irony is what Maggette, and others, did might soon be completely legal in the NCAA's eyes. If amateurism rules are overhauled, monies paid to high school summer league players for their basketball services (travel, food, etc.) might be allowed as long as players don't take money from agents.

The NCAA seems to be moving away from the term "extra benefit" as a breach of amateurism standards to "competitive advantage." In other words, did Maggette, Williams or Kareem Rush become a better player by taking the money? The answer obviously is no. The case is different with JaRon Rush since he also admitted to taking money from an agent.

That would be a huge change from the current constrictive rules. The NCAA says if a school knew or should have known of an ineligible player in the tournament, it can forfeit as much as 90 percent of the tournament revenue. If it is deemed the player knew or should have known about the wrongdoing, then the penalty is usually 45 percent.

Each "unit" of revenue for advancing in the tournament is approximately worth $100,000. Because Duke went to the championship game, it earned at least $500,000 in 1999.

But this is not necessarily a Duke thing. Stripping schools of tournament accomplishments and revenue have become a trend since 1994.

That year, former Missouri center Jevon Crudup and his family were ruled by the NCAA to have accepted a trip to Las Vegas and gifts from infamous agent runner Nate Cebrun. That's the same Nate Cebrun who allegedly was involved in the Florida State-Foot Locker case.

Missouri, which advanced to the West Regional Final in 1994, was stripped of that accomplishment and required to pay back some tournament revenue. Since then, eight other schools have suffered similar penalties. That group includes, Arizona, UCLA and Texas Tech, which were all handed similar penalties last week.

"We've had full disclosure about our response in this case," Krzyzewski said. "What else do you want us to do? We're not going to hide anything."

That's more than can be said of the feds, who continue to pursue a case that looks like it should be closed. Unless there's something they're not telling us.