If these allegations are true then the Cajuns are going to be in deep sh!t. Wow.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...violations

if the schools admits and does not fight, that should help limit the fallout somewhat.

So, who snitched on them?

If it could be proven that the assistant coach truly was rouge in his actions and that the recruits who benefitted from those actions ended up not benefiting the team, then I'd be fine with just firing that assistant and putting the school on probation only, as the penalties.

I'm sure that won't happen. But that's my opinion.

(10-12-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, who snitched on them?

Probably somebody in the same boat, looking for leniency when their turn comes around.

Poor Cajuns...

The allegation surrounding the ACT test center seems like something that is going to catch others up soon.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

From everything I have read UL-L cooperated fully with the NCAA and the NCAA agrees that it appears to be the work of one rouge assistant. Maybe that buys them some leniency.

ULL's head football coach is going to get hit with the same kind of "failure to monitor", "failure to ensure an atmosphere of compliance" suspension that was given to Larry Brown and Jim Boeheim.

Quote:Under the new model, coaches can no longer turn a blind eye to impermissible conduct. Head coaches are now presumed to have knowledge of all actions or omissions in their program and may be penalized individually for violations committed by staff, unless they can prove they took measures to prevent such conduct. As explained by Ed Ray, chairman of the NCAA board, the onus is on the coaches:

“We expect head coaches to provide practices and training and written materials that instruct their assistant coaches how to act. If they’ve done that, it can become mitigating evidence that they shouldn’t be held accountable for what [a member of their coaching staff] did. But head coaches have to have these things in place or the presumption will be that they didn’t care enough to set standards and take responsibility for their programs. If there is no guidance and an assistant goes rogue, then it’s partly the head coach’s fault and he/she should be held accountable.”

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...agner.aspx

And UNC still skates by with far worse

I'll just leave this here from our response:

Quote:It is clear from the specific circumstances of the prospective student-athletes' ACT exams that impropriety occurred, and that such impropriety went undetected by ACT and the NCAA Eligibility Center until the enforcement staff's investigation of a pattern of violations that trailed Saunders to the University. Based on information revealed during the course of the investigation, it is evident that the improper activity occurred in advance of the University hiring Saunders, yet both ACT and the Eligibility Center - upon which all NCAA members rely to detect fraud and affirm the validity of prospective student-athlete academic credentials - failed to discover the testing impropriety at WCHS. Despite this lack of oversight, neither ACT nor the Eligibility Center will face any direct repercussions. Rather, the University, its football program, and its student-athletes (in particular, several named in this case) will be impacted by significant sanctions that scar past accomplishments and inhibit future opportunities.

That is one universal truth: the biggest loser in these infractions is always the players who didn't do anything wrong.

(10-12-2015 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That is one universal truth: the biggest loser in these infractions is always the players who didn't do anything wrong.

Like our defending national champion golf player who had nothing to do with the prior golf coach not being able to defend his title

(10-12-2015 10:31 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That is one universal truth: the biggest loser in these infractions is always the players who didn't do anything wrong.

Like our defending national champion golf player who had nothing to do with the prior golf coach not being able to defend his title

He should have gone to UNC. He'd have graduated before anything came to light, if he had.

Huge failure by ACT.

ACT scores are some of the least things to worry about. HS transcripts weren't tampered with. Its a major violation, but not a big deal in the scheme of cheating.

The only big deal was paying for the student's expenses at JC.

(10-12-2015 09:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, who snitched on them?

Probably somebody in the same boat, looking for leniency when their turn comes around.

I don't doubt that. I remember an ESPN "expose" where the office that handles these complaints was featured, and how overworked and understaffed they were. And complaints are relentless.

My question is, and why I have a thin skin on the matter, is that the NCAA encourages the tattling, but tattling isn't whistle-blowing, so if schools are going to go out there and make accusations toward others, why are they allowed to move through things anonymously, especially if claims don't result in findings? We always hear of the accused...let's have at it with those who are crying foul.

(10-12-2015 12:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, who snitched on them?

Probably somebody in the same boat, looking for leniency when their turn comes around.

I don't doubt that. I remember an ESPN "expose" where the office that handles these complaints was featured, and how overworked and understaffed they were. And complaints are relentless.

My question is, and why I have a thin skin on the matter, is that the NCAA encourages the tattling, but tattling isn't whistle-blowing, so if schools are going to go out there and make accusations toward others, why are they allowed to move through things anonymously, especially if claims don't result in findings? We always hear of the accused...let's have at it with those who are crying foul.

I'd agree to that, but only in cases where no evidence at all could be found supporting the complaint.

Otherwise, I think it's correct to foster a culture of protecting whistle-blowers.

(10-12-2015 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, who snitched on them?

Probably somebody in the same boat, looking for leniency when their turn comes around.

I don't doubt that. I remember an ESPN "expose" where the office that handles these complaints was featured, and how overworked and understaffed they were. And complaints are relentless.

My question is, and why I have a thin skin on the matter, is that the NCAA encourages the tattling, but tattling isn't whistle-blowing, so if schools are going to go out there and make accusations toward others, why are they allowed to move through things anonymously, especially if claims don't result in findings? We always hear of the accused...let's have at it with those who are crying foul.

I'd agree to that, but only in cases where no evidence at all could be found supporting the complaint.

Otherwise, I think it's correct to foster a culture of protecting whistle-blowers.

If this came out from within ULL, that's whistle-blowing, and it should be encouraged and protected. If this is someone, a booster or a rep from another school, put it out on display. If there's a tip line, don't pick it up. In this business, this complaint wasn't made about someone caring about the kid, this was 99.9% about someone being pissed the kid chose ULL over someone else. "We can't have him so nobody can." That isn't worth protecting.

Quote:NCAA 'Bout To Drop The Hammer on Louisiana-Lafayette?

What did LSU do now?

(10-12-2015 01:19 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:40 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, who snitched on them?

Probably somebody in the same boat, looking for leniency when their turn comes around.

I don't doubt that. I remember an ESPN "expose" where the office that handles these complaints was featured, and how overworked and understaffed they were. And complaints are relentless.

My question is, and why I have a thin skin on the matter, is that the NCAA encourages the tattling, but tattling isn't whistle-blowing, so if schools are going to go out there and make accusations toward others, why are they allowed to move through things anonymously, especially if claims don't result in findings? We always hear of the accused...let's have at it with those who are crying foul.

I'd agree to that, but only in cases where no evidence at all could be found supporting the complaint.

Otherwise, I think it's correct to foster a culture of protecting whistle-blowers.

If this came out from within ULL, that's whistle-blowing, and it should be encouraged and protected. If this is someone, a booster or a rep from another school, put it out on display. If there's a tip line, don't pick it up. In this business, this complaint wasn't made about someone caring about the kid, this was 99.9% about someone being pissed the kid chose ULL over someone else. "We can't have him so nobody can." That isn't worth protecting.

Well, presumably, whomever else wanted that player would've also "looked the other way" on the cheating test center. So that school might also be in hot water over this. Right?