Don't wish bad things on your conference mates. They might still be your conference mates and the conference may be weakened.

(05-01-2011 07:30 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Don't wish bad things on your conference mates. They might still be your conference mates and the conference may be weakened.

This, definitely true.

As for the UCF fans who are in complete/partial denial that this may be true, even if everything points to the direction of these being lies, as a fanbase, we cannot be complacent with just defending the school. Because that also means our integrity as individuals will come into question.

Consider all possible outcomes, and if these allegations penalize the institution we love, then weed out the m-fers that damaged the future stability of the program and support the school, not the leadership that ruined it.

That's pretty much all I have to say. It is ridiculous how many of the fans from our alma mater are being so narrow-sighted when discussing this. Much more room to improve.

(05-01-2011 07:36 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 07:30 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Don't wish bad things on your conference mates. They might still be your conference mates and the conference may be weakened.

This, definitely true.

As for the UCF fans who are in complete/partial denial that this may be true, even if everything points to the direction of these being lies, as a fanbase, we cannot be complacent with just defending the school. Because that also means our integrity as individuals will come into question.

Consider all possible outcomes, and if these allegations penalize the institution we love, then weed out the m-fers that damaged the future stability of the program and support the school, not the leadership that ruined it.

That's pretty much all I have to say. It is ridiculous how many of the fans from our alma mater are being so narrow-sighted when discussing this. Much more room to improve.

The Dispatch has removed the article from its website and the link doesn't work. I guess they found ole Chuck was using BS info. on his hit piece.

The NCAA are thorns in the side, if they see you they stick on your. Things could get interesting soon.

(05-01-2011 03:37 PM)SomeKnight Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 02:25 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 01:13 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 12:33 PM)knightastic Wrote:  this is like porn to ECU, USF, and any other fans in the anti-UCF camp

Why are you UCF fans playing the victim card here....You are the ones already on probation and getting ready to be part of another NCAA investigation....

UCF is NOT on probation. There were on probation and turned themselves in to the NCAA for some ex-coaches that called a couple of players before the date allowed. The probation ended in 2010. It was a minor violation and O'Leary wasn't aware of it. Those coaches went on to coach at Tennessee.

Goldbuc, Neither of the two people who were involved in texting recruits were football coaches.

You are correct. I was wrong, there and shooting from the hip. And the probation is through 2012, I just found out. The Orlando Sentinel said it was from 2008-2010, though.

(05-01-2011 01:50 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 12:33 PM)knightastic Wrote:  this is like porn to ECU, USF, and any other fans in the anti-UCF camp

and our football D getting lit up last season was like porn to you guys who are in the anti-ECU camp........

if ECU was in this same situation, we wouldn't hear the end of it from your fans........

AMEN!!!

(05-01-2011 07:51 PM)SomeKnight Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 07:36 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 07:30 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Don't wish bad things on your conference mates. They might still be your conference mates and the conference may be weakened.

This, definitely true.

As for the UCF fans who are in complete/partial denial that this may be true, even if everything points to the direction of these being lies, as a fanbase, we cannot be complacent with just defending the school. Because that also means our integrity as individuals will come into question.

Consider all possible outcomes, and if these allegations penalize the institution we love, then weed out the m-fers that damaged the future stability of the program and support the school, not the leadership that ruined it.

That's pretty much all I have to say. It is ridiculous how many of the fans from our alma mater are being so narrow-sighted when discussing this. Much more room to improve.

The Dispatch has removed the article from its website and the link doesn't work. I guess they found ole Chuck was using BS info. on his hit piece.

Correct...as everyone knew the twitter account was fake except the dumb reporter...but then again, the previous poster to your response believed it didn't matter if the twitter account was fake.

(05-01-2011 05:49 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 02:40 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 02:25 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 01:13 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 12:33 PM)knightastic Wrote:  this is like porn to ECU, USF, and any other fans in the anti-UCF camp

Why are you UCF fans playing the victim card here....You are the ones already on probation and getting ready to be part of another NCAA investigation....

UCF is NOT on probation. There were on probation and turned themselves in to the NCAA for some ex-coaches that called a couple of players before the date allowed. The probation ended in 2010. It was a
minor violation and O'Leary wasn't aware of it. Those coaches went on to coach at Tennessee.

Sorry...did not know your probation ended a few months ago but I do not think it really changes the overall point of my post. Again, trying to rationalize
your indiscretions are no big deal. If they were not a big deal you would not have been on probation....I don't care who did it and who did not know about it, it still happened.

No it does not change the point of your post...slandering UCF while boosting ECU...

Slandering UCF????? What the heck are you smoking. You corrected me about the fact you were no longer on probation and I said I was sorry and admitted I was wrong. You were in fact on probation with the NCAA in 2010 and not right now. Now to the point of boosting ECU, not sure where you get that idea, I never mentioned ECU once in my post...I can understand you UCF being on the defensive but I think you are a little over the top here.

(05-01-2011 07:30 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Don't wish bad things on your conference mates. They might still be your conference mates and the conference may be weakened.

I agree but I want it to be a level playing field when it comes to on the field competition. If a school within our conference is cheating in the recruting wars then they need to be punished as their cheating would give them an unfair advantage. So I hope all the teams within our conference are clean but if they are not I would want for them to be caught and punished by the NCAA.

(05-01-2011 02:25 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  UCF is NOT on probation. There were on probation and turned themselves in to the NCAA for some ex-coaches that called a couple of players before the date allowed. The probation ended in 2010. It was a minor violation and O'Leary wasn't aware of it. Those coaches went on to coach at Tennessee.

Your post could hardly be more incorrect.

1. The violations were deemed "major" in the press release. 209 impermissible phone calls and 100 impermissible text messages over 18 months to 27 recruits.

2. While the self-imposed recruiting restrictions ended in 2010, the probation period started February 2010 and ends February 2012.

So, UCF is on probation. And UCF now has apparently committed more recruiting violations, including phone call abuse involving an illegal recruiter whom your head coach and AD follow on Twitter. This is not good. The term is "lack of institutional control."

You should spin this less and take it seriously more.

I for one will wait for the NCAA to do what it does. If everything out there now is true, and there is not more the only thing UCF would have done wrong is listening in on the phone call. If UCF paid bender or Caldwell, there is no evidence of that as of now, UCF is and should be in deep doo doo. This could get very ugly for a # of schools by the time this is done, if Caldwell or Bender were out there for hire, They have connections to Kentucky, Depaul, UL, and others. It is highly unlikely that DJ becomes UCF's coach then suddenly starts breaking rules, Marshall got much better recruits after he got there.

I'm not going to say anythng negative about UCF and what's been said, yet. I'll let things play out over time and see whats showing when the cream rises to the top.

UCF fans sound just like the Tar Heel fans when their situation broke and we now know what was happening inside that program. Generally where there is some smoke there is some fire and time will tell. There are a ton of those so called high and mighty, self rightous, Tar Heels eating a lot of crow these days.

If UCF did break the rules then they should be punished just like any other program. Just like one of our coaches was fired for watching a session ran by the S&C coaches. It came to light and Ruff sent him packing.

(05-02-2011 02:03 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-01-2011 02:25 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  UCF is NOT on probation. There were on probation and turned themselves in to the NCAA for some ex-coaches that called a couple of players before the date allowed. The probation ended in 2010. It was a minor violation and O'Leary wasn't aware of it. Those coaches went on to coach at Tennessee.

Your post could hardly be more incorrect.

1. The violations were deemed "major" in the press release. 209 impermissible phone calls and 100 impermissible text messages over 18 months to 27 recruits.

2. While the self-imposed recruiting restrictions ended in 2010, the probation period started February 2010 and ends February 2012.

So, UCF is on probation. And UCF now has apparently committed more recruiting violations, including phone call abuse involving an illegal recruiter whom your head coach and AD follow on Twitter. This is not good. The term is "lack of institutional control."

You should spin this less and take it seriously more.

Cougar, really?

We had coaches, who were long gone by the time the investigation started, text and call players when they weren't allowed to. Of course the NCAA calls it a 'major' infraction, that's what they do, but ask any sportsfan if they'd classify that as major and you'll hear a resounding *NO*. It's just like the NCAA calling the FSU 'scandal' a 'major' infraction; kids were cheating on an Online General Education class (believe it was Music History or Theory) *OH MY GAWD THE STATE OF THEIR ATHLETICS PROGRAMS IS IN SHAMBLES!!!*

*MAJOR* violations are pay for play schemes, covering up said schemes, or lying to the NCAA when it's investigating.

(05-02-2011 11:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Cougar, really?

We had coaches, who were long gone by the time the investigation started, text and call players when they weren't allowed to. Of course the NCAA calls it a 'major' infraction, that's what they do, but ask any sportsfan if they'd classify that as major and you'll hear a resounding *NO*. It's just like the NCAA calling the FSU 'scandal' a 'major' infraction; kids were cheating on an Online General Education class (believe it was Music History or Theory) *OH MY GAWD THE STATE OF THEIR ATHLETICS PROGRAMS IS IN SHAMBLES!!!*

*MAJOR* violations are pay for play schemes, covering up said schemes, or lying to the NCAA when it's investigating.

I'm definitely not trying to start an argument over this...but it is important to note that describing a violation as "Major" is not a matter of semantics. It doesn't really matter what the average sports fan thinks. It is an official designation by the NCAA. If you read the press release, it is clearly stated:

"The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has found that University of Central Florida committed major violations in its football program."

To be quite frank, it doesn't get any more cut and dried than that. Whether the NCAA finds any fault with UCF on the most recent case is subject for debate, but the NCAA committee has made it very clear that two instances of major infractions within a five year period makes a charge of 'Lack of Institutional Control' a real possibility.

It's the NCAA's job to overstate any findings they have in hopes of limiting the actions by other schools in the future, that distinction means nothing to those involved enough in athletics to know better. Paying Cam Newton to play for you is a *Major* infraction, having a slush fund to pay for players is a *Major* infraction, calling players too many times or times when it's not allowed isn't a *Major* infraction. Look at our punishment, that's not a punishment for a *Major* infraction.

I'm not just having black and gold glasses on either, if it were you that that had happened to I'd be saying the same thing. Every program walks to the line, and occasionally members of that program cross the line. Major infractions are those which question the entire program and it's commitment to abiding by the NCAA's rules and regulations. Calls/Text messages by a coach who is no longer employed don't really do that.

UCF should have just paid his dad.

(05-02-2011 11:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's the NCAA's job to overstate any findings they have in hopes of limiting the actions by other schools in the future, that distinction means nothing to those involved enough in athletics to know better. Paying Cam Newton to play for you is a *Major* infraction, having a slush fund to pay for players is a *Major* infraction, calling players too many times or times when it's not allowed isn't a *Major* infraction. Look at our punishment, that's not a punishment for a *Major* infraction.

I'm not just having black and gold glasses on either, if it were you that that had happened to I'd be saying the same thing. Every program walks to the line, and occasionally members of that program cross the line. Major infractions are those which question the entire program and it's commitment to abiding by the NCAA's rules and regulations. Calls/Text messages by a coach who is no longer employed don't really do that.

I will give you this:

The fact that UCF self-reported the previous violations makes an "Institutional Control" allegation highly unlikely. Generally, the following constitutes institutional control:

• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

However, the fact remains that a major violation is a major violation. This is defined by the infractions committee...not by some kind of "man on the street" litmus test.

(05-02-2011 11:21 AM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(05-02-2011 11:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's the NCAA's job to overstate any findings they have in hopes of limiting the actions by other schools in the future, that distinction means nothing to those involved enough in athletics to know better. Paying Cam Newton to play for you is a *Major* infraction, having a slush fund to pay for players is a *Major* infraction, calling players too many times or times when it's not allowed isn't a *Major* infraction. Look at our punishment, that's not a punishment for a *Major* infraction.

I'm not just having black and gold glasses on either, if it were you that that had happened to I'd be saying the same thing. Every program walks to the line, and occasionally members of that program cross the line. Major infractions are those which question the entire program and it's commitment to abiding by the NCAA's rules and regulations. Calls/Text messages by a coach who is no longer employed don't really do that.

I will give you this:

The fact that UCF self-reported the previous violations makes an "Institutional Control" allegation highly unlikely. Generally, the following constitutes institutional control:

• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

However, the fact remains that a major violation is a major violation. This is defined by the infractions committee...not by some kind of "man on the street" litmus test.

To put the NCAA's usage of the term "Major Violations" into perspective, almost half (53 of 120) of the FBS teams have had major Violations in the past 10 years alone. That is my point, what the NCAA calls a 'major violation' isn't truly a 'major violation', it's just a violation.

From - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...ions_N.htm

Quote:Still others point out that, especially compared with some of the high-profile pay-for-play and other scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, many of the cases in the last decade involve relatively minor violations, such as excessive phone calls to recruits.

Our violation is used as an example in this article of the issue that what the NCAA deems as major recruiting violations, really aren't major recruiting violations.

(05-02-2011 11:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-02-2011 11:21 AM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(05-02-2011 11:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's the NCAA's job to overstate any findings they have in hopes of limiting the actions by other schools in the future, that distinction means nothing to those involved enough in athletics to know better. Paying Cam Newton to play for you is a *Major* infraction, having a slush fund to pay for players is a *Major* infraction, calling players too many times or times when it's not allowed isn't a *Major* infraction. Look at our punishment, that's not a punishment for a *Major* infraction.

I'm not just having black and gold glasses on either, if it were you that that had happened to I'd be saying the same thing. Every program walks to the line, and occasionally members of that program cross the line. Major infractions are those which question the entire program and it's commitment to abiding by the NCAA's rules and regulations. Calls/Text messages by a coach who is no longer employed don't really do that.

I will give you this:

The fact that UCF self-reported the previous violations makes an "Institutional Control" allegation highly unlikely. Generally, the following constitutes institutional control:

• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

However, the fact remains that a major violation is a major violation. This is defined by the infractions committee...not by some kind of "man on the street" litmus test.

To put the NCAA's usage of the term "Major Violations" into perspective, almost half (53 of 120) of the FBS teams have had major Violations in the past 10 years alone. That is my point, what the NCAA calls a 'major violation' isn't truly a 'major violation', it's just a violation.

From - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...ions_N.htm

Quote:Still others point out that, especially compared with some of the high-profile pay-for-play and other scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, many of the cases in the last decade involve relatively minor violations, such as excessive phone calls to recruits.

Our violation is used as an example in this article of the issue that what the NCAA deems as major recruiting violations, really aren't major recruiting violations.

The same thing could be said about felonies and misdemeanors. Plenty of felonies that aren't on the order of murder and really come quite close to what many misdemeanors are...but it matters not. The term felony is treated vastly different than a misdemeanor...regardless of public perception of the crime. And yes, the punishment may be far less than what you get for murder...but it's a felony none-the-less.

That analogy would make sense if 50% of the population had felonies.