From Dave Matter at the St. Louis Dispatch:
Quote:"We believe that the penalties our programs received were a clear abuse of the Committee’s discretion based upon existing NCAA bylaws," MU athletics director Jim Sterk said in Monday's release. "Our staff and legal team have worked tirelessly to research and develop a well-written appeal that accurately reflects our position. We look forward to having the opportunity to meet face to face with the NCAA Appeals Committee later this year, and it is our sincere hope that at the end of this process, the penalties assessed are consistent with the nature of the violations and take into account our swift response.”
To me, the most interesting aspect of Mizzou's argument is they are stating this ruling will have a "chilling effect" on future infractions cases.
Glad to see someone just say that because I think the members are quickly losing confidence in the NCAA.
After North Carolina slid by with not even a wrist slap, I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the NCAA's ability to handle alleged infractions with consistent standards and processes for discovery. They let politics, money, conflicts of interest, and reactions to individual personalities in each case, yield compromising and baffling outcomes.
(03-26-2019 10:40 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]After North Carolina slid by with not even a wrist slap, I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the NCAA's ability to handle alleged infractions with consistent standards and processes for discovery. They let politics, money, conflicts of interest, and reactions to individual personalities in each case, yield compromising and baffling outcomes.
I agree, however there wasn't much that was baffling about the UNC outcome when you think about it. The NCAA bankrolls nearly 80 million a year from the NCAA tournament and places it in one of two endowed accounts the sum of which exceeds a billion dollars. Should North Carolina receive a severe penalty and not compete in the tournament the advertising rates would drop with the loss of one of the top 5 brand draws. That costs the NCAA money further illustrating the bias and deceit of that organization.
You will note that even in the Women's tournament in a year when Tennessee should have been outside looking in, they were included. Why? They are easily the 2nd best recognized brand for that tournament even without Pat Summit. Would the women's tournament be a television success without Connecticut, Tennessee and Stanford?
Money is the reason that the media darlings of each sport receive favoritism when their hands are caught in the cookie jar.
It's a bloated, jaded, inefficient, and ineffective organization whose time has passed but it is such a close bureaucracy to the government that I believe it was the root cause of the Judge's ruling in Alston being so restrained. The NCAA and AOC have shared some relatively close ties. State schools raking in cash off of sports gives the NCAA the status of overseer for schools supported by appropriations in all of our states. The Feds are simply going to be reticent to upset a revenue stream for the state schools even if it comes at the athlete's expense. In other words government is going to protect government.
Missouri will take this issue as far as it takes.
(03-29-2019 12:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]Missouri will take this issue as far as it takes.
As they should. Either the NCAA is forced to get their act together and enforce their rules unbiased, uniformly and and with prescient or school’s will begin doing away with that organization.
From the article
Quote:In the appeals brief, Mizzou argued three points: One, the sanctions were "contrary to NCAA case precedent." Two, the sanctions were "not supported, or appropriate, given the nature of the violation." Three, the sanctions "could have a chilling effect on future NCAA enforcement processes."
(03-26-2019 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, however there wasn't much that was baffling about the UNC outcome when you think about it. The NCAA bankrolls nearly 80 million a year from the NCAA tournament and places it in one of two endowed accounts the sum of which exceeds a billion dollars. Should North Carolina receive a severe penalty and not compete in the tournament the advertising rates would drop with the loss of one of the top 5 brand draws.
I've heard this argument before but frankly I'm not convinced. Would UNC not participating in the tournament really affect their bottom line that dramatically? In 2010, the year that UNC missed the tournament, the Final Four had some of its highest ratings ever.
A more convincing argument might just be that the head of the ACC and Big Ten are UNC grads and UNC has a ton of influence in Indianapolis. But I don't believe that UNC getting a one or two year tournament ban would have anything more than a negligible impact.
(03-29-2019 01:45 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2019 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, however there wasn't much that was baffling about the UNC outcome when you think about it. The NCAA bankrolls nearly 80 million a year from the NCAA tournament and places it in one of two endowed accounts the sum of which exceeds a billion dollars. Should North Carolina receive a severe penalty and not compete in the tournament the advertising rates would drop with the loss of one of the top 5 brand draws.
I've heard this argument before but frankly I'm not convinced. Would UNC not participating in the tournament really affect their bottom line that dramatically? In 2010, the year that UNC missed the tournament, the Final Four had some of its highest ratings ever.
A more convincing argument might just be that the head of the ACC and Big Ten are UNC grads and UNC has a ton of influence in Indianapolis. But I don't believe that UNC getting a one or two year tournament ban would have anything more than a negligible impact.
The NCAA is in a tenuous position, a little less so now that Alston's ruling essentially protected them in as much as the judge didn't want to destroy a system which was quasi-governmental in nature by virtue of its close association with the AOC. Carolina would not impact the tournament greatly, especially if there are other blue bloods carrying the torch. However, alienating a North Carolina could easily lead to the kind of breakaway that the Oklahoma/Georgia case led to in the early 80's which essentially removed football revenue from the NCAA.
I think eventually the paying of players will emerge and that the NCAA will cease to exist for the top sports schools and will remain over Div II & III and perhaps some of what is now the FBS.
Face it Gamecock in NCAA terms North Carolina is too big to fail. And it is not just a problem of the NCAA even the accreditation services tamped down their response to Carolina's most resent sins.
The move to NET calculations instead of RPI has resulted in greater inclusion for the P5. So the NCAA is very much afraid of a P5 breakaway and if the P5 forms their own governance structure the remaining NCAA tournament definitely will not be the cash cow it is now and the figures I cited are correct and the way it is governed the NCAA holds the money and pays it out over a period of years which allows them to keep the principal for year 1 parse it out while earning interest for at least 3 years after the money is earned. It's an egregious, self aggrandizing system that needs to end.
I just don’t think UNC getting a 1-2 year ban has any bottom line affect on tournament ratings. Maybe I’m too dense to understand, but March madness is still March madness and there are plenty of other schools with larger fanbases.