Looks like they remained reasonable.

So a 2 year probationary period with some recruiting restrictions and scholarship reduction to total 6 (3 in 2016-2017 and 3 in 2017-2018) and limited to 80 in 2015-2016 and 82 in 2016-2018 (which appears to be a penalty the institution instated) which comes to a net loss of 11 scholarships.

Vacated 2011 season and NO Bowl win was accepted by the NCAA. Also any wins with players also deemed to be ineligible in later seasons will be vacated.

Not all that bad in general. Worst part is the scholarship losses. Plus, no bowl ban.

Does this mean no bowls for two years?

The assistant (Saunders) definitely took the brunt. 8 year show cause penalty. Basically impossible to get an NCAA job for almost a decade.

(01-12-2016 12:23 PM)slycat Wrote:  Does this mean no bowls for two years?

No, they are fine.

(01-12-2016 12:23 PM)slycat Wrote:  Does this mean no bowls for two years?

Uh, no: bowl bans not imposed.

(01-12-2016 12:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:23 PM)slycat Wrote:  Does this mean no bowls for two years?

No, they are fine.

Shoot they got off pretty easy. Makes sense though because they self reported and the assistant coach acted alone

(01-12-2016 12:25 PM)wcd35 Wrote:  The assistant (Saunders) definitely took the brunt. 8 year show cause penalty. Basically impossible to get an NCAA job for almost a decade.

It should be never. And ULL should sue the guy for damages.

That was hardly worth the delay. Oh well, back to basketball!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-12-2016 12:25 PM)wcd35 Wrote:  The assistant (Saunders) definitely took the brunt. 8 year show cause penalty. Basically impossible to get an NCAA job for almost a decade.

Good that's how it should be. Too many of these coaches ditch the program and get off easier then the team.

(01-12-2016 12:25 PM)wcd35 Wrote:  The assistant (Saunders) definitely took the brunt. 8 year show cause penalty. Basically impossible to get an NCAA job for almost a decade.

Didn't he recently get promoted to head coach at Pearl River Community College?

(Maybe this isn't part of the NCAA - not sure how community colleges are classified)

(01-12-2016 12:27 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:25 PM)wcd35 Wrote:  The assistant (Saunders) definitely took the brunt. 8 year show cause penalty. Basically impossible to get an NCAA job for almost a decade.

Good that's how it should be. Too many of these coaches ditch the program and get off easier then the team.

One D-bag can ruin a program for thousands of fans and the playing careers of a large number of players who all did the right things.

One D-bag can taint the advancement of a head coach who didn't do anything wrong.

One D-bag can cost a university millions in revenue it can't afford.

Each one of those scholarship penalties is a real player who will not get a slot in FBS.

Lifetime ban, and states should enact criminal penalties for deliberate and willfull violations that harm public educational institutions. I think Ohio did that.

Cajuns got off very light. NCAA is sort of famous for throwing the book at G5 schools, see SMU basketball.

I was most concerned about a one or two year bowl ban being applied. That would have hurt tremendously.

Under the circumstances, we came out smelling like a rose.

I think the ULL administration needs to be given kudos for handling this whole mess as well as possible. Some fans were down on them for vacating the 2011 season including the bowl game but it appears they did the right thing.

The two most important parts of the statement.

1) Where they not only clear the admin from wrong-doing, but also compliment them:

"The panel commends the institution for its level of cooperation in this case. It expended substantial
institutional resources to expedite a thorough and fair collection and disclosure of information in the case and the institution's president and athletics compliance director both personally invested substantial time and attention to the details of the investigation.

In short, the institution's exemplary cooperation in this case was a model for the kind of relationship and cooperation member institutions should strive for in the infractions process."



2) And the part where they specifically exonerate Hud:

"The case did not involve a failure to monitor or a lack of institutional control. There was also no allegation that the head coach lacked control in this case"

(01-12-2016 12:57 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I was most concerned about a one or two year bowl ban being applied. That would have hurt tremendously.

Under the circumstances, we came out smelling like a rose.

I think the ULL administration needs to be given kudos for handling this whole mess as well as possible. Some fans were down on them for vacating the 2011 season including the bowl game but it appears they did the right thing.

One thing to ponder though....where did Saunders get that cash?

Saunders may be gone...but you may still have an unknown rogue booster out there....who may not be that good at it.

(01-12-2016 01:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:57 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I was most concerned about a one or two year bowl ban being applied. That would have hurt tremendously.

Under the circumstances, we came out smelling like a rose.

I think the ULL administration needs to be given kudos for handling this whole mess as well as possible. Some fans were down on them for vacating the 2011 season including the bowl game but it appears they did the right thing.

One thing to ponder though....where did Saunders get that cash?

Saunders may be gone...but you may still have an unknown rogue booster out there....who may not be that good at it.

Every program has rogue boosters I'd be willing to bet. BTW, I skimmed that part, what was their finding on the cash payment. The university denied it vehemently from what I recall.

These coaches need lifetime bans. You have the Baylor basketball coach that covered up a murder and drug use who still coaches. The assistant that blew the whistle can't get a job because he is seen as a rat.

(01-12-2016 01:00 PM)LAcajuns_fan Wrote:  The two most important parts of the statement.

1) Where they not only clear the admin from wrong-doing, but also compliment them:

"The panel commends the institution for its level of cooperation in this case. It expended substantial
institutional resources to expedite a thorough and fair collection and disclosure of information in the case and the institution's president and athletics compliance director both personally invested substantial time and attention to the details of the investigation.

In short, the institution's exemplary cooperation in this case was a model for the kind of relationship and cooperation member institutions should strive for in the infractions process."



2) And the part where they specifically exonerate Hud:

"The case did not involve a failure to monitor or a lack of institutional control. There was also no allegation that the head coach lacked control in this case"

But this can't be...this doesn't fit BRtransplants narrative.