(02-06-2017 11:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 03:56 PM)canewton Wrote:  Nah, just some general cover-up of sexual and assault crimes to help the football team remain competitive.

Those are crimes against the law. Charge him. Prove the case in court. Put him in jail.

Why isn't that good enough for you????

Why do you desire to make people who had nothing do with it suffer????

(02-05-2017 08:21 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  A player that should be suspended under the school's conduct policy, or worse (in jail), gets to play in a football game.

How's that not using an "ineligible" player?

Because the player was eligible at the time of the game.

You know full well there is no such thing as "retroactive ineligibility". And you know full well that you can't prove that the player would have been suspended if the evidence had been heard by a university review panel, prior to the game.

So you have no case.

(02-06-2017 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For that matter, how is basically "pimping" school girls to get hs players to sign not a recruiting violation? Is that something all incoming freshman get, or just athletes?

There is no NCAA rule against a female student at Baylor having sex with a recruit.

Such a thing might not be legal. And it may not be moral.


But certainly, the NCAA has no place to judge it and enforce a penalty because of it.

Bison, if the commission of crimes (felonies in particular) by athletes of a school, and by their coaches who intentionally obstruct justice, and by the administration which intentionally subverts justice, and which by definition forms a criminal conspiracy through collusion, which is in fact a lack of control by the governing body of the school (lack of institutional control), which is the most serious violation of a school according to the NCAA, doesn't completely constitute grounds for action then what the hell does???

You are straining at the proverbial gnat but swallowing the camel. This is as much of a text book case for the NCAA as SMU was in the 80's.

I'm really, really struggling with why & how you guys are so desperate for the NCAA to have a say in this.


We're talking about crimes, and the covering up of crimes ... which is just more crimes. Committed by individuals.

They broke the law, then they do the time, provided the state can prove the case in court.



The NCAA has no part in it.

You all are straining for dear life to make up a reason for the NCAA to have a part in it.



I guess because you want it to be the 80's and want it to be SMU all over again.

Those days are gone. It will never be that again, ever.

(02-06-2017 01:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm really, really struggling with why & how you guys are so desperate for the NCAA to have a say in this.


We're talking about crimes, and the covering up of crimes ... which is just more crimes. Committed by individuals.

They broke the law, then they do the time, provided the state can prove the case in court.



The NCAA has no part in it.

You all are straining for dear life to make up a reason for the NCAA to have a part in it.



I guess because you want it to be the 80's and want it to be SMU all over again.

Those days are gone. It will never be that again, ever.

Don't start dissembling here. The NCAA has a function. It's most serious accusation is that of "loss of institutional control". The sanctions stem from that and that is how they are involved.

The only reason legal action has not been taken is because the local PD in Waco has not intervened. Waco isn't large and I imagine their jobs are at stake. That said, I'm sure at some point the State, or Feds, will step in and indictments will be issued. That is their function.

Just because crimes are, or are not, prosecuted does not impede, supersede, or replace the function of the NCAA which has ample reason to intervene here. If it doesn't intervene it loses all credibility and should be overhauled, replaced, or eliminated.

You're simply assuming the thing that has to first be shown: that the NCAA has a place.

You want it to be true that the NCAA has a place. But what I can't figure out is why.


If there is a conspiracy, then call the FBI. Get the state of Texas involved as well, state police. Dept of Ed, if warranted, too.



The NCAA exists to make rules regarding proper recruiting and eligibility of players. Cheating on tests, playing ineligible players, etc. No such things occurred here, so they have no place.

Interesting Article about...
Why the NCAA may NOT lay the Hammer on Baylor

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ns-demand/

(02-06-2017 11:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You know full well there is no such thing as "retroactive ineligibility".

In the eyes of the NCAA there is. Remember Derrick Rose?

Quote:On August 20, 2009, the NCAA vacated Memphis' 2007–08 season. It took the position that because the Educational Testing Service voided Rose's SAT score after Rose's freshman year at Memphis, strict liability required that Rose be retroactively declared ineligible

The NCAA is to college athletics what FINRA is to registered financial advisors. There's rules and regulations in place that need to be followed and face disciplinary actions if they're broken but both lack the jurisdiction to file criminal charges against offenders. The former is non profit, the latter a self regulatory organization.

What MplsBison is saying is that the NCAA has no power in filing criminal charges against Baylor, Penn State, North Carolina, etc. It lacks the jurisdiction to do that, it's up to law enforcement agencies from local to federal levels to decide if they're investigating and filing charges against school officials. The only thing the NCAA can do is institutional penalties like bowl bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, etc.

(02-06-2017 03:21 PM)Chappy Wrote:  In the eyes of the NCAA there is. Remember Derrick Rose?

Quote:On August 20, 2009, the NCAA vacated Memphis' 2007–08 season. It took the position that because the Educational Testing Service voided Rose's SAT score after Rose's freshman year at Memphis, strict liability required that Rose be retroactively declared ineligible

Thanks for this example.

Problem with this example is that there was an objective record that Rose was not eligible and that the school used an eligible player.

In Baylor's case, none of the players had actually had a hearing with a panel of Baylor University employees that determined the player should be suspended or expelled. So since that never happened, there is no way to prove the players "should" have been ineligible. You can guess this way or that, but that's just your opinion and can't be proven correct.

(02-06-2017 03:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What MplsBison is saying is that the NCAA has no power in filing criminal charges against Baylor, Penn State, North Carolina, etc. It lacks the jurisdiction to do that, it's up to law enforcement agencies from local to federal levels to decide if they're investigating and filing charges against school officials. The only thing the NCAA can do is institutional penalties like bowl bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, etc.

Well that should be obvious.

What I'm really advocating is that I don't understand why if our legal system can punish the people affiliated with the university who committed the crimes, why isn't that good enough?

Why do people want the NCAA to take further action, against the school itself????

Why blood from a turnip?


Guess it's just the nature of some people, to go stomp on the neck of your neighbor's dog after the neighbor is convicted in court of stealing your truck and totaling it in an accident.

MPLS you are too busy sorting grains of sand to see the beach.

NCAA Bylaws require each member to certify that every member of the roster in each sport is eligible under NCAA and university rules.

If Joe Superstar steals a laptop from a dorm room and is adjudicated (criminally or by school disciplinary committee) to have committed the act and the school's own rules require a minimum of a semester suspension, that athlete is ineligible to compete even if the school never suspended him.

If the institution fails to take appropriate action by declaring the student-athlete(s) ineligible, the institution shall be required to show cause to the Committee on
Infractions why additional penalties should not be prescribed for a failure to abide by the conditions and obligations of membership if it permits the student-athlete(s) to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

When an ineligible student-athlete participates and the student-athlete or the institution knew or had reason to know of the ineligibility, the NCAA Committee on Infractions may assess a financial penalty

When an institution certifies a player as eligible knowing that player should not be eligible under the school's rules for its students that is an NCAA violation.

When an institution interferes with the judicial process to prevent civil or criminal liability that is a benefit and if it is not extended to all students it is an impermissible benefit.

(02-06-2017 03:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 03:21 PM)Chappy Wrote:  In the eyes of the NCAA there is. Remember Derrick Rose?

Quote:On August 20, 2009, the NCAA vacated Memphis' 2007–08 season. It took the position that because the Educational Testing Service voided Rose's SAT score after Rose's freshman year at Memphis, strict liability required that Rose be retroactively declared ineligible

Thanks for this example.

Problem with this example is that there was an objective record that Rose was not eligible and that the school used an eligible player.

In Baylor's case, none of the players had actually had a hearing with a panel of Baylor University employees that determined the player should be suspended or expelled. So since that never happened, there is no way to prove the players "should" have been ineligible. You can guess this way or that, but that's just your opinion and can't be proven correct.

(02-06-2017 03:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What MplsBison is saying is that the NCAA has no power in filing criminal charges against Baylor, Penn State, North Carolina, etc. It lacks the jurisdiction to do that, it's up to law enforcement agencies from local to federal levels to decide if they're investigating and filing charges against school officials. The only thing the NCAA can do is institutional penalties like bowl bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, etc.

Well that should be obvious.

What I'm really advocating is that I don't understand why if our legal system can punish the people affiliated with the university who committed the crimes, why isn't that good enough?

Why do people want the NCAA to take further action, against the school itself????

Why blood from a turnip?


Guess it's just the nature of some people, to go stomp on the neck of your neighbor's dog after the neighbor is convicted in court of stealing your truck and totaling it in an accident.

If you subvert the university discipline process to avoid the player being declared ineligible, you've violated the eligibility certification process.

Arkansas and Arkansas State have both had shame on you letters from the NCAA and pay a penalty for certifying transfer athletes as eligible who were eligible under NCAA rules but not the institutions own rules on transfers. Each BECAME eligible but were listed eligible before they actually were.

Hell AState got sanctioned for certifying 30 players as eligible WHO WERE ELIGIBLE because their degree progress was reported incorrectly. The incorrect reporting rendered them ineligible. If reported correctly they were eligible, just a screw up by the compliance officer calculating GPA and degree progress.

(02-06-2017 03:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NCAA Bylaws require each member to certify that every member of the roster in each sport is eligible under NCAA and university rules.

And no evidence explicitly proves that the Baylor players were ineligible.

"Should have been" doesn't cut it. You can't prove it.

(02-06-2017 03:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  the school's own rules require a minimum of a semester suspension

What school is going to write a rule saying "if a student is simply accused, with no evidence proving otherwise, and the university's own review panel finds the student not guilty .... well, the student probably should be suspended anyway" ??

You're either pulling that out of your ____ or the school is incredibly stupid.

(02-06-2017 04:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you subvert the university discipline process to avoid the player being declared ineligible, you've violated the eligibility certification process.

A) prove it was subverted --> you can't

B) that's not actually a rule, that's your opinion

"Should have been ineligible" is not good enough. Sorry

(02-06-2017 04:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Arkansas and Arkansas State have both had shame on you letters from the NCAA and pay a penalty for certifying transfer athletes as eligible who were eligible under NCAA rules but not the institutions own rules on transfers. Each BECAME eligible but were listed eligible before they actually were.

Hell AState got sanctioned for certifying 30 players as eligible WHO WERE ELIGIBLE because their degree progress was reported incorrectly. The incorrect reporting rendered them ineligible. If reported correctly they were eligible, just a screw up by the compliance officer calculating GPA and degree progress.

Maybe so, but that is irrelevant here.

The Baylor players were eligible. Nothing declared them ineligible. Nothing was subverted.

We can’t defend Briles anymore

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/02/07/we-ca...s-anymore/

(02-07-2017 05:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 03:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NCAA Bylaws require each member to certify that every member of the roster in each sport is eligible under NCAA and university rules.

And no evidence explicitly proves that the Baylor players were ineligible.

"Should have been" doesn't cut it. You can't prove it.

Idiotic position.

A player passes a course because he cheated. He plays in the games because he is "eligible."

Later, it is determined he cheated, and should have been ineligible.

What happens? Usually, the games are forfeited.

In fact, every time a game is forfeited, it's because a player participated who was eligible at the time, and later deemed to be ineligible because of some wrongdoing.

(02-08-2017 08:01 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We can’t defend Briles anymore

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/02/07/we-ca...s-anymore/

Fans never handle this type of stuff well. PSU fans did the same thing with PAterno and to some degree still do defend him. Louisville fans are in complete denial about the stuff their schools in involved in and now Baylor fans are just doing the same thing.

It's like becasue they root for the school they can't have a rational thought about what has gone one or accept responsibility for what happened.

The fact that baylor got over 1,000 student signatures for CAB is sickening. Much like PSU fans standing by Paterno when its' obvious he knew what was going on and chose to enable that behavior. PAterno is a scumbag loser and so is Briles. Both deserve a place in hell for what they did, or didn't' do in these situations.

Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken · 9m9 minutes ago

Dan Wolken Retweeted Big 12 Conference

Big 12 penalizing Baylor 25% of revenue from the league. That's something.

Dan Wolken added,

Big 12 Conference @Big12Conference
#Big12 Board action announced - http://big12.us/2lnMPZ1

(02-06-2017 02:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You're simply assuming the thing that has to first be shown: that the NCAA has a place.

You want it to be true that the NCAA has a place. But what I can't figure out is why.


If there is a conspiracy, then call the FBI. Get the state of Texas involved as well, state police. Dept of Ed, if warranted, too.



The NCAA exists to make rules regarding proper recruiting and eligibility of players. Cheating on tests, playing ineligible players, etc. No such things occurred here, so they have no place.

You are tilting at windmills. The NCAA is a voluntary association. It's members want the NCAA involved in items like this.

If the NCAA members didn't, they are free to either leave, or change NCAA bylaws.

Big XII punishment...

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...-are-made/

(02-08-2017 10:05 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 08:01 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We can’t defend Briles anymore

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/02/07/we-ca...s-anymore/

Fans never handle this type of stuff well. PSU fans did the same thing with PAterno and to some degree still do defend him. Louisville fans are in complete denial about the stuff their schools in involved in and now Baylor fans are just doing the same thing.

It's like becasue they root for the school they can't have a rational thought about what has gone one or accept responsibility for what happened.

The fact that baylor got over 1,000 student signatures for CAB is sickening. Much like PSU fans standing by Paterno when its' obvious he knew what was going on and chose to enable that behavior. PAterno is a scumbag loser and so is Briles. Both deserve a place in hell for what they did, or didn't' do in these situations.

Not really....don't defend Pitino, Wakeyleaks....whatever punishment they receive it is deserved....

(02-08-2017 12:06 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:05 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 08:01 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We can’t defend Briles anymore

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/02/07/we-ca...s-anymore/

Fans never handle this type of stuff well. PSU fans did the same thing with PAterno and to some degree still do defend him. Louisville fans are in complete denial about the stuff their schools in involved in and now Baylor fans are just doing the same thing.

It's like becasue they root for the school they can't have a rational thought about what has gone one or accept responsibility for what happened.

The fact that baylor got over 1,000 student signatures for CAB is sickening. Much like PSU fans standing by Paterno when its' obvious he knew what was going on and chose to enable that behavior. PAterno is a scumbag loser and so is Briles. Both deserve a place in hell for what they did, or didn't' do in these situations.

Not really....don't defend Pitino, Wakeyleaks....whatever punishment they receive it is deserved....

It's very well known how Louisville fans act when discussing the issues. Deny, change subject, and insult. Happens every week. You can pretend otherwise but there posts are there for everyone to read.

(02-08-2017 08:18 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  A player passes a course because he cheated. He plays in the games because he is "eligible."

Later, it is determined he cheated, and should have been ineligible.

What happens? Usually, the games are forfeited.

In fact, every time a game is forfeited, it's because a player participated who was eligible at the time, and later deemed to be ineligible because of some wrongdoing.

Apples and oranges. And I can prove it to you, easily in fact: the U of Minnesota case, this season.

Minnesota played with players almost the whole regular season, who were accused of acts in Sept 2016. But the school later found that those players violated school policy and were not just suspended but expelled.


That is exactly what you guys are arguing. If you were correct, then Minn would've had to vacate those wins during the regular season. But it's not and it won't have to.

That proves that even using players who were eligible at the time but then later found to be in violation of school rules, does not result in vacating wins.


LET ALONE, that you can't prove that the Baylor players would have been found to be in violation of school rules by a Baylor University hearing panel. You can guess that they "should have been", but that's just your guess and doesn't prove anything.

(02-08-2017 10:14 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Big 12 penalizing Baylor 25% of revenue from the league. That's something.

There you have it, the response from the conference ... and it's a fair and justifiable response. Not anything close to the "kick them out!" chants of those who just say that hoping to take their place.

A monetary penalty is fair, and in this case is really just incentive to make sure things get improved and done correctly.

(02-08-2017 11:50 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  It's members want the NCAA involved in items like this.

No they don't. You made that up.

You've made it abundantly clear that you want every man who has ever been accused of rape, regardless of evidence, to be sent directly to prison, with no trial or hearing. That's your agenda. That's on you.