After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

Lack of Institutional Control is almost always in with the charges so a school knows what they are up against. With the asst coach not turning over his phone or now even talking to the NCAA the charges list should be what UL-L will be punished on.

Most head coaches will leave this type of work to the asst and compliance office. None of us are P5 schools our head coaches have too much on his plate that he can't farm out to be hands on in compliance issues. Plus it puts a barrier between him and any problems. So unless the asst starts talking or more facts comes out...Hud will walk away embarrassed and people thinking he had to know (probably didn't) but nothing else...personally.

I don't believe for a second this was a one person job but I also don't believe the head coach knew about it...someone in between most likely did.

(10-12-2015 11:45 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

I doubt that seriously. Although he has done a great job during his tenure, I don't think it is enough to get him the kind of gig he is looking for next.

(10-12-2015 11:45 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

How does that explain him not leaving after 2011, 2012, or 2013? The first inquiries done by the NCAA enforcement staff didn't happen until a week before the 2013 New Orleans Bowl, which other institutions would have no knowledge of these inquiries.

(10-12-2015 11:45 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

I don't think Hud is involved with the charges but I do believe there were rumors in the venting of job searches and why his name hasn't been out there for a lot of jobs.

All schools have friends or contacts or a friend of a friend at most schools and maybe the hint of this or the rep of the asst caught was enough to keep Hud's name off the job list past the venting stage

(10-12-2015 11:45 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

I always said their had to be something dirty going on for his name to never be connected to a better job. It wasn't the conference because stAte lost 3 head coaches in that time.

It's odd to me how ULL fans monitor this board waiting to pounce.

(10-12-2015 09:32 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:25 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  I'm hearing this one is big and isn't going to go away fast. Institutional Control issues.

You can hear all you want, but not once, in the NCAA notice of allegation, is the term "lack of institutional control" used.

We self-imposed the penalties already. It is just a matter of the NCAA accepting those penalties (2 year probation, a couple less scholarships for the next 2-3 years, vacating 2011 New Orleans Bowl win). We did consider a 1 year postseason ban for football, but concluded that such a penalty would be unreasonable based on the actions of one individual.

I think our response to the NCAA gave a pretty good shot at the absurdity of penalizing current and future student-athletes because of the actions of one coach.

Quote:... 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.

So all of this is ACT's fault for not busting WCHS before the cajuns hired the coach? Really??

I feel for you guys but if this is the core of your defense, that firm needs to give the money back.

(10-12-2015 11:53 AM)LAcajuns_fan Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:45 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  After multiple successful seasons at UL-L, is it possible that these allegations are the reason Hud wasn't snatched by a P5 school by now? I know the stance that the UL-L fans have taken is that Hud didn't want to leave UL-L because it was the best place in the world to be, but one has to wonder now if there isn't more to the story.

I doubt that seriously. Although he has done a great job during his tenure, I don't think it is enough to get him the kind of gig he is looking for next.

Hudspeth has plateaued. Though he's done better than any previous UL-L coach, he still hasn't been able to get over the hump and get that signature win. Now in his fifth year at UL-L, Hudspeth has not won a single game against P5 competition. That kind of performance won't get you many looks from P5 schools that are looking for a coach.

From NCAA.org

Quote:»Enforcement

Enforcement Process: Charging

Charging


Once the investigation has closed, the NCAA enforcement staff sends a notice of allegations to an institution and involved individuals. The notice of allegations outlines the rules that the institution is alleged to have broken and describes the facts of the case.

However, if an institution agrees with the facts that the investigation has uncovered, the case can enter the summary-disposition process before a notice of allegations is provided. In summary disposition, the school and the enforcement staff agree on the facts and a set of penalties to be imposed; no hearing before the Committee on Infractions is necessary.

Once an institution receives a notice of allegations, it has up to 90 days to respond in writing. Extensions can be provided. Evidence − including recorded interviews, summaries and transcripts − can be reviewed at the national office or through a private, secure website.

When all parties have had the opportunity to respond, a hearing is set before the Committee on Infractions.



Frequently Asked Questions


What is institutional control?

Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.

What does it mean when an institution is found to have a lack of institutional control?

A lack of institutional control is found when the Committee on Infractions determines that major violations occurred and the institution failed to display:
•Adequate compliance measures.
•Appropriate education on those compliance measures.
•Sufficient monitoring to ensure the compliance measures are followed.
•Swift action upon learning of a violation.

How is a lack-of-institutional-control violation different from a failure-to-monitor violation?

A failure-to-monitor violation, although serious, is a separate and distinct violation that is considered less significant than a lack of institutional control. Violations resulting from a failure-to-monitor violation are usually limited in scope and do not involve the widespread inadequacies in rules-compliance systems and functions that are often found in lack-of-institutional-control cases.

Can individuals be charged with a lack of institutional control or failure to monitor?

Yes. Coaches and staff members can be held personally responsible for failing to adequately monitor and exercise appropriate control over rules compliance in an athletics department or within a sport program. NCAA bylaws require head coaches to promote an atmosphere for compliance and to monitor the rules compliance of those who report to them.

Who receives the notice of allegations from the NCAA?

The notice of allegations is sent to institutional officials (that is, president, director of athletics, compliance director, faculty athletics representative and other persons involved in the case), individuals considered to be at risk for involvement in violations, and the head coaches of the involved programs.

Is there a statute of limitations for making allegations?

Yes. Allegations generally are based on violations that have occurred four or fewer years before the time an institution is notified of an investigation or an institution notifies the enforcement staff of violations. However, the enforcement staff may allege violations that have occurred beyond the four-year period if they involve (1) the eligibility of a current student-athlete, (2) a pattern of willful violations that began before the four-year window but continue into the four-year window or (3) a blatant disregard for certain fundamental rules (recruiting, extra benefits, academics, ethical conduct) or (4) an effort to conceal violations.

What is the difference between major violations and secondary violations? How do the penalties differ?

Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent and provide only minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantages. They do not include significant impermissible benefits. If an institution commits several secondary violations, the violations may be collectively considered a major infraction. Secondary violations occur frequently, are usually resolved administratively and are not typically made public. Any violation that is not considered secondary is a major violation. Major violations usually provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage, are investigated by NCAA enforcement staff, and can lead to severe penalties against the school and involved individuals.

Tags:Enforcement
•Division I
•Division II
•Division III
..

Sounds more like failure to monitor to me.

(10-12-2015 12:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  It's odd to me how ULL fans monitor this board waiting to pounce.

Football fans on a football board see a thread that is about their school (the ulala stuff is old and trollish but whatever) and one isnt supposed to comment?

Just to put something out there, the problems stem from a recruiting guy and the administrator of the ACT at an off-campus testing center. NONE of this happened on campus or had anything to do with classes or grades, ie UNC. I doubt any school looks into ACT scores all that much. We will get what we get, probably more than we deserve because its the NCAA and we are not SEC or P5 but this isnt the Pony Express. I think the fact that we self-reported, fired the guy immediatley, and have fully cooperated will help. I would think the self-imposed penalties will be enough but I'm not sure.

(10-12-2015 01:05 PM)ragin4u Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  It's odd to me how ULL fans monitor this board waiting to pounce.

Football fans on a football board see a thread that is about their school (the ulala stuff is old and trollish but whatever) and one isnt supposed to comment?

Just to put something out there, the problems stem from a recruiting guy and the administrator of the ACT at an off-campus testing center. NONE of this happened on campus or had anything to do with classes or grades, ie UNC. I doubt any school looks into ACT scores all that much. We will get what we get, probably more than we deserve because its the NCAA and we are not SEC or P5 but this isnt the Pony Express.

I beg to differ. A player's eligibility certainly has to do with SAT and/or ACT. If a school doesn't take props (don't know if ULL does or not), the ACT score matters a great deal.

For instance, a player with a 3.0 GPA would need to have completed 16 core courses in high school and attain an SAT score of 620 or higher or an ACT sum score of 52...Otherwise, it's prop city.

(10-12-2015 01:05 PM)ragin4u Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  It's odd to me how ULL fans monitor this board waiting to pounce.

Football fans on a football board see a thread that is about their school (the ulala stuff is old and trollish but whatever) and one isnt supposed to comment?

Just to put something out there, the problems stem from a recruiting guy and the administrator of the ACT at an off-campus testing center. NONE of this happened on campus or had anything to do with classes or grades, ie UNC. I doubt any school looks into ACT scores all that much. We will get what we get, probably more than we deserve because its the NCAA and we are not SEC or P5 but this isnt the Pony Express. I think the fact that we self-reported, fired the guy immediatley, and have fully cooperated will help. I would think the self-imposed penalties will be enough but I'm not sure.

LOL...really. Like Ragin Pagin doesn't have a ton of active latur posters....and so does the SBC site.

In fact, the only site that does not tolerate 'outside' posters is the latur site. Those few who do have their posts modified, deleted....ro their avatar changed, etc. That is before they are banned.

And then they actually sit around and crow about how no UL folks post there anymore. The height of delusion.

If it's true that the current head coach did not know about this and the responsible coach is no longer there, this should not be too bad for ULL.

Personally I don't think any school should be punished for any violation until UNC gets the death penalty and Miami can only field a flag football team.

(10-12-2015 02:02 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  If it's true that the current head coach did not know about this and the responsible coach is no longer there, this should not be too bad for ULL.

Personally I don't think any school should be punished for any violation until UNC gets the death penalty and Miami can only field a flag football team.

I believe the ship has sailed on punishment for Miami since the NCAA botched the investigation by paying for information in violation of their own rules.

(10-12-2015 12:59 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  From NCAA.org

Quote:What does it mean when an institution is found to have a lack of institutional control?

A lack of institutional control is found when the Committee on Infractions determines that major violations occurred and the institution failed to display:
•Adequate compliance measures.
•Appropriate education on those compliance measures.
•Sufficient monitoring to ensure the compliance measures are followed.
•Swift action upon learning of a violation.

Sounds more like failure to monitor to me.

I disagree, they at least hit 2 of the 4 issues:

The guy did it 3 times from 2011-2013; once ok that's hard to monitor but paying off the ACT person for 6 students 3 different times, plus the payment to the JUCO player?!?

Doesn't sound like sufficient monitoring...

ULL found out about Saunders investigation and issues Dec. 16th 2013, he wasn't removed from recruiting, until 6 months later (May 2014) well after NSD, and then another 6 months before they said he "resigned".

Not really swift, even then they didn't really take any action as ULL made it look like he resigned for personal reasons.

(10-12-2015 01:13 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:05 PM)ragin4u Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:18 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  It's odd to me how ULL fans monitor this board waiting to pounce.

Football fans on a football board see a thread that is about their school (the ulala stuff is old and trollish but whatever) and one isnt supposed to comment?

Just to put something out there, the problems stem from a recruiting guy and the administrator of the ACT at an off-campus testing center. NONE of this happened on campus or had anything to do with classes or grades, ie UNC. I doubt any school looks into ACT scores all that much. We will get what we get, probably more than we deserve because its the NCAA and we are not SEC or P5 but this isnt the Pony Express.

I beg to differ. A player's eligibility certainly has to do with SAT and/or ACT. If a school doesn't take props (don't know if ULL does or not), the ACT score matters a great deal.

For instance, a player with a 3.0 GPA would need to have completed 16 core courses in high school and attain an SAT score of 620 or higher or an ACT sum score of 52...Otherwise, it's prop city.

Didn't mean we dont take the ACT score. Meant that it would be very hard to catch someone at the testing center changing a score. It is not like someone at UL falsified anything.
When the investigation showed Saunders was probably involved, he was terminated. SOP is to allow one to "resign" if there is no contract hit.

(10-12-2015 12:27 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:32 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:25 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  I'm hearing this one is big and isn't going to go away fast. Institutional Control issues.

You can hear all you want, but not once, in the NCAA notice of allegation, is the term "lack of institutional control" used.

We self-imposed the penalties already. It is just a matter of the NCAA accepting those penalties (2 year probation, a couple less scholarships for the next 2-3 years, vacating 2011 New Orleans Bowl win). We did consider a 1 year postseason ban for football, but concluded that such a penalty would be unreasonable based on the actions of one individual.

I think our response to the NCAA gave a pretty good shot at the absurdity of penalizing current and future student-athletes because of the actions of one coach.

Quote:... 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.

So all of this is ACT's fault for not busting WCHS before the cajuns hired the coach? Really??

I feel for you guys but if this is the core of your defense, that firm needs to give the money back.

Irony that WCHS (Wayne County High School) is being brought up. This is the same high school that produced former Ole Miss and Kansas City Chiefs product Jerrell Powe (spelling might be off). He was a top recruit for Ole Miss quite a few years back but couldn't get into Ole Miss for a while due to his ACT score. My "fondest" memory of Powe trying to get into Ole Miss was his mother saying "He's a good kid...he just don't know how to read".

Who is latur?

(10-12-2015 02:23 PM)Germdawg Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:59 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  From NCAA.org

Quote:What does it mean when an institution is found to have a lack of institutional control?

A lack of institutional control is found when the Committee on Infractions determines that major violations occurred and the institution failed to display:
•Adequate compliance measures.
•Appropriate education on those compliance measures.
•Sufficient monitoring to ensure the compliance measures are followed.
•Swift action upon learning of a violation.

Sounds more like failure to monitor to me.

I disagree, they at least hit 2 of the 4 issues:

The guy did it 3 times from 2011-2013; once ok that's hard to monitor but paying off the ACT person for 6 students 3 different times, plus the payment to the JUCO player?!?

Doesn't sound like sufficient monitoring...

ULL found out about Saunders investigation and issues Dec. 16th 2013, he wasn't removed from recruiting, until 6 months later (May 2014) well after NSD, and then another 6 months before they said he "resigned".

Not really swift, even then they didn't really take any action as ULL made it look like he resigned for personal reasons.

A lot of times HR issues are a very thorny thing to deal with: they had to be careful to not just fire him on the spot, without having any evidence. Given all the complexities involved, the timeframes given seem understandable to me.