A former University of Missouri, Columbia, tutor violated NCAA ethical conduct, academic misconduct and academic extra benefits rules when she completed academic work for 12 student-athletes, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel.

The Committee used the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to prescribe the following measures:

Three years of probation.

A 10-year show-cause order for the former tutor. During that period, any NCAA member school employing the tutor must restrict her from any athletically related duties.

A 2018-19 postseason ban for the baseball and softball programs.

A 2019-20 postseason ban for the football program.

A vacation of records in which football, baseball and softball student-athletes competed while ineligible.

The university must provide a written report containing the matches impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 45 days of the public decision release.

A 5 percent reduction in the amount of scholarships in each of the football, baseball and softball programs during the 2019-20 academic year.

Recruiting restrictions for each of the football, baseball and softball programs during the 2019-20 academic year, including:

A seven-week ban on unofficial visits.
A 12.5 percent reduction in official visits.
A seven-week ban on recruiting communications.
A seven-week ban on all off-campus recruiting contacts and evaluations.
A 12.5 percent reduction in recruiting-person or evaluation days.
A disassociation of the tutor. Details of the disassociation can be found in the public report (self-imposed by the university).
A fine of $5,000 plus 1 percent of each of the football, baseball and softball budgets.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...t-athletes

That’s gonna hurt for Barry Odom. He was steadily improving after a slow start.

They've fully embraced SEC culture!

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

With that avatar, you really don't want to go there.

(01-31-2019 12:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

With that avatar, you really don't want to go there.

I went to Oxford, I just like their logo.

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Everyone knows that SEC tutors do homework for the athletes. Missouri is just too new to SEC to know how to avoid NCAA detection and got caught.

(01-31-2019 12:57 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Everyone knows that SEC tutors do homework for the athletes. Missouri is just too new to SEC to know how to avoid NCAA detection and got caught.

Thank goodness that doesn't happen at other places.

Nice move Kelly Bryant. Where are you going now?

Free transfers for seniors!

Jason Kirk points out that the NCAA wasn't very convincing in its rationale for the differences between the Missouri and North Carolina situations:

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/31/18205...s-bowl-ban

Quote:Wait, so why does Mizzou get hammered for one bad tutor, while UNC got away with years and years of flawed academics? The NCAA explains, confusingly:

"Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes. In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes’ work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."

So UNC got away with it because UNC was fine with the results, while Mizzou got punished because Mizzou agreed something bad happened. Right?

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

That's my line. And I can deliver it without hypocrisy.

(01-31-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:57 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Everyone knows that SEC tutors do homework for the athletes. Missouri is just too new to SEC to know how to avoid NCAA detection and got caught.

Thank goodness that doesn't happen at other places.

Yeah, there's some schools you can't Tar with that brush ... because they just didn't assign any homework to the athletes.

(01-31-2019 01:59 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:57 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Everyone knows that SEC tutors do homework for the athletes. Missouri is just too new to SEC to know how to avoid NCAA detection and got caught.

Thank goodness that doesn't happen at other places.

Yeah, there's some schools you can't Tar with that brush ... because they just didn't assign any homework to the athletes.

As a fan of the SEC school located in the ”other,” original Columbia, and with apologies to Tod Browning, all I can say is “One of Us, One of Us!”

Jeez.. did the NCAA confuse Mizzo with Missouri State? They aren't suppose to hit P5 schools like this.

I heard in a sign of solidarity, Rutgers football agreed to sitout the postseason in 2019 for football.

A Georgia fan checks in with a troll...

(01-31-2019 01:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Jason Kirk points out that the NCAA wasn't very convincing in its rationale for the differences between the Missouri and North Carolina situations:

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/31/18205...s-bowl-ban

Quote:Wait, so why does Mizzou get hammered for one bad tutor, while UNC got away with years and years of flawed academics? The NCAA explains, confusingly:

"Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes. In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes’ work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."

So UNC got away with it because UNC was fine with the results, while Mizzou got punished because Mizzou agreed something bad happened. Right?

There is a substantial difference between the two.

UNC had bogus courses, but the students did their own work.

Mizzou had real courses, but the students had the tutor do the work for them.

(01-31-2019 02:44 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Jeez.. did the NCAA confuse Mizzo with Missouri State? They aren't suppose to hit P5 schools like this.

And yet they frequently do.

Ohio State, Penn State, USC, Ole Miss, Miami, and North Carolina have all had postseason bans in the past decade.

(01-31-2019 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Jason Kirk points out that the NCAA wasn't very convincing in its rationale for the differences between the Missouri and North Carolina situations:

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/31/18205...s-bowl-ban

Quote:Wait, so why does Mizzou get hammered for one bad tutor, while UNC got away with years and years of flawed academics? The NCAA explains, confusingly:

"Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes. In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes’ work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."

So UNC got away with it because UNC was fine with the results, while Mizzou got punished because Mizzou agreed something bad happened. Right?

There is a substantial difference between the two.

UNC had bogus courses, but the students did their own work.

Mizzou had real courses, but the students had the tutor do the work for them.

Substantial in relationship to the efficacy of their eligibility? I don't see it.

In both cases, the school did not make a good faith effort to provide an education or ensure the athletes didn't have access to special benefits.