Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,433
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 511
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #21
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 03:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(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.

You're right, in both cases the result was that athletes remained academically eligible when they shouldn't have.

The bolded part is some of the real difference. The phony North Carolina courses included some non-athletes, so UNC could argue it wasn't an athletes-only benefit. More importantly, North Carolina apparently threatened to sue the NCAA and make them explain to a judge why the NCAA thinks it has authority to decide whether or not a university course is legitimate.
01-31-2019 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,052
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 688
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #22
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 04:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-31-2019 03:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(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.

You're right, in both cases the result was that athletes remained academically eligible when they shouldn't have.

The bolded part is some of the real difference. The phony North Carolina courses included some non-athletes, so UNC could argue it wasn't an athletes-only benefit. More importantly, North Carolina apparently threatened to sue the NCAA and make them explain to a judge why the NCAA thinks it has authority to decide whether or not a university course is legitimate.

Why I argue accrediting agencies need a better arsenal. They can send a sternly worded letter or kill the entire university or a college within the university or a department but they don't have anything between nuclear response and words.
01-31-2019 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,768
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #23
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(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?

In other words...don't work with the NCAA and they can't hurt you. Give them an inch, and they'll take quite a few miles. You can't take what isn't there.
01-31-2019 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 18,903
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1398
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Maybe, but they haven't attained North Carolina Status for Academic Fraud!
01-31-2019 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,067
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 119
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #25
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(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. 07-coffee3

Ask Wedge about Cal's history on that issue.
01-31-2019 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 18,903
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1398
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
If Alston wins their case it will create an interesting world in which the the NCAA will have to try to implement their sanctions. Missouri will appeal. But when bogus classes that were billed through the bursar doesn't draw heavy sanctions for fraud, or result in the withdrawal of accreditation it seems to me that anyone who gets hit for less should sue.
01-31-2019 07:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mj4life Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 977
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: unc
Location:
Post: #27
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 04:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-31-2019 03:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(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.

You're right, in both cases the result was that athletes remained academically eligible when they shouldn't have.

The bolded part is some of the real difference. The phony North Carolina courses included some non-athletes, so UNC could argue it wasn't an athletes-only benefit. More importantly, North Carolina apparently threatened to sue the NCAA and make them explain to a judge why the NCAA thinks it has authority to decide whether or not a university course is legitimate.
Basically UNC called the NCAA's bluff, they would have had a hard time explaining how courses open to the entire student population are impermissable while being ok with athletic dept run courses only available to athletes that many schools use to help maintain eligibility
01-31-2019 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 421
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 15
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #28
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2019 12:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  They've fully embraced SEC culture!

Maybe, but they haven't attained North Carolina Status for Academic Fraud!

I'm still waiting waiting for the worthless NCAA to hand down punishment to Baylor.

Mizzou gets hammered for a tutor and Baylor gets off raping coeds?

Doesn't make sense to me.
01-31-2019 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,443
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #29
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(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.

We already have a self imposed ban on postseason play in football. 03-wink
01-31-2019 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,820
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 168
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #30
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(01-31-2019 04:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-31-2019 04:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-31-2019 03:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(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

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.

You're right, in both cases the result was that athletes remained academically eligible when they shouldn't have.

The bolded part is some of the real difference. The phony North Carolina courses included some non-athletes, so UNC could argue it wasn't an athletes-only benefit. More importantly, North Carolina apparently threatened to sue the NCAA and make them explain to a judge why the NCAA thinks it has authority to decide whether or not a university course is legitimate.

Why I argue accrediting agencies need a better arsenal. They can send a sternly worded letter or kill the entire university or a college within the university or a department but they don't have anything between nuclear response and words.

SACS is really no different than the NCAA in that it’s legitimacy stems from the fact its members acknowledge that it is an accrediting body. Against institutions like UNC, a strongly worded letter is all they could send.
02-01-2019 07:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,768
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #31
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
Accreditation threats are ripple points, though. You may lose some faculty and staff who simply won’t wait for how a situation resolves, and it can be easy to recruit for students against the reviewed institution. Doubt can cast a wide shadow.

The schools may become a place to avoid.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2019 09:12 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
02-01-2019 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 388
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Dogs, Roosters
Location:
Post: #32
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
SEC Commissioner Sankey chaired the review team that let UNC get a full pass.

What all this shows is that some schools will get punished, others won't due to political influence and lobbying efforts, regardless of the level of seriousness of the alledged infractions.
02-01-2019 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,052
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 688
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.
02-01-2019 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 18,903
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1398
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.

The absurdity over the inability to punish heinous acts merely highlights the inefficacy of the governing structure and screams for a need to replace it. Alston may make the need to do so moot, since we would no longer be promoting amateur sports.
02-01-2019 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,768
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #35
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.

The absurdity over the inability to punish heinous acts merely highlights the inefficacy of the governing structure and screams for a need to replace it. Alston may make the need to do so moot, since we would no longer be promoting amateur sports.

Right, well, and you pose the last resort: the courts. There are stop-guards all along the way for this stuff, and it always starts with the university itself. Local and state government, accrediting bodies, DoE, federal legislation...they all look like they drop the ball on this.

UNC is a good example of how to play the NCAA on this. Discover a big issue, and make the NCAA do its own work. Which, in its current state, doesn't. And the accrediting body is just academic peers writing letters and resistant to doing the big things (but have less issues dropping hammers on two-year and industry schools).

Penn State exposed how enforcement is overall. NCAA judges based only on Freeh. NCAA doesn't do their own report, which the government/DoE needs to render decisions on matters such as Clery. DoE was incapacitated by the lack of an independent review by the NCAA. It wasn't going to render a decision with just the school-issued report. Meanwhile, you have the state government getting involved mad as heck about whether the school was using state funds to pay for the fine, and the school was like, "you don't know what money we use, nor do we have to tell you," and the state has to back off.

It's all around failure. And it takes stuff like the courts to figure only shreds of it. But, it really shouldn't be this bad. All of the stop-guards up to the courts fail to perform.

Nobody should be working with the NCAA in these matters because of the awful inconsistencies and fecklessness in their enforcement. However, the schools are still doing the right thing. They're just failed by the NCAA.
02-01-2019 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,672
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 830
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #36
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(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.

And UNC did it for hundreds of athletes in almost every sport over a dozen years in a scam that was well known by the coaches and academic staff. Mizzou had one tutor do it for a handful of athletes in 3 sports over just a few years.
02-01-2019 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,672
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 830
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #37
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.
UNC egregiously broke the rules. If there is ever an argument for a death penalty, it is UNC. Players were eligible who would not otherwise have been. Its simple. The classes were set up for athletes. Other Black students taking advantage were incidental and in many cases, unintended.
02-01-2019 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,672
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 830
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #38
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 12:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.

The absurdity over the inability to punish heinous acts merely highlights the inefficacy of the governing structure and screams for a need to replace it. Alston may make the need to do so moot, since we would no longer be promoting amateur sports.

Right, well, and you pose the last resort: the courts. There are stop-guards all along the way for this stuff, and it always starts with the university itself. Local and state government, accrediting bodies, DoE, federal legislation...they all look like they drop the ball on this.

UNC is a good example of how to play the NCAA on this. Discover a big issue, and make the NCAA do its own work. Which, in its current state, doesn't. And the accrediting body is just academic peers writing letters and resistant to doing the big things (but have less issues dropping hammers on two-year and industry schools).

Penn State exposed how enforcement is overall. NCAA judges based only on Freeh. NCAA doesn't do their own report, which the government/DoE needs to render decisions on matters such as Clery. DoE was incapacitated by the lack of an independent review by the NCAA. It wasn't going to render a decision with just the school-issued report. Meanwhile, you have the state government getting involved mad as heck about whether the school was using state funds to pay for the fine, and the school was like, "you don't know what money we use, nor do we have to tell you," and the state has to back off.

It's all around failure. And it takes stuff like the courts to figure only shreds of it. But, it really shouldn't be this bad. All of the stop-guards up to the courts fail to perform.

Nobody should be working with the NCAA in these matters because of the awful inconsistencies and fecklessness in their enforcement. However, the schools are still doing the right thing. They're just failed by the NCAA.

Pennsylvania won on the fine. They told the NCAA and Penn St. that there is no way PSU money was to go out of state.
02-01-2019 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,768
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #39
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Pennsylvania won on the fine. They told the NCAA and Penn St. that there is no way PSU money was to go out of state.

Sorry, yes, correct.

The State wanted more, but won this piece. I still think it was obnoxious the state had to go after the school on it; that the school was okay to move on the fine, rather than call up the state and say, "hey, did you hear what they want to do with us? Are you okay with this?"
02-01-2019 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,052
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 688
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #40
RE: NCAA hits Missouri with post-season bans, other sanctions
(02-01-2019 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-01-2019 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA has twice encountered a situation where it wanted to punish someone for egregious behavior but had no authority to do so because no rule on the books made the conduct a violation of NCAA rules.

Each time the NCAA tried to bluff its way through.

Penn State was reeling and agreed to accept punishment at a time emails were circulating among NCAA officials wringing their hands over what would they do if Penn State called their bluff.

North Carolina sat down with the NCAA enforcement staff and the NCAA laid out the depravity of the university and a lawyer for UNC LITERALLY tossed an NCAA manual across the table and told the NCAA staff member to turn to the page that has the rule UNC violated.

Everyone can stomp their little feet and complain about the NCAA and UNC and the fact of the matter is UNC didn't break an NCAA rule with the classes because no one ever dreamed anyone would do such thing and never passed a rule that applied to the situation.

It's like the "murder zone" of Yellowstone Park in Idaho where a crime that would entitle you to a jury cannot be held because there are no eligible jurors so you cannot be tried for the crime that took place there.

UNC found the perfect loophole. The NCAA wanted to hammer UNC but UNC called their bluff.

The absurdity over the inability to punish heinous acts merely highlights the inefficacy of the governing structure and screams for a need to replace it. Alston may make the need to do so moot, since we would no longer be promoting amateur sports.

Some years ago police in Arkansas wanted to prosecute some guy who rigged up gear to take photos up women's dresses.

Everyone was pissed off and angry and in the end there wasn't anything that could be done except change the law and hope they could catch him doing again some day after the effective date of the new law.

Honestly I completely understand it never occurring to a group of presidents and AD's that a school might create fake classes and award credit to students. If UNC had just done it for athletes, there is a rule that could stretch to apply but the inclusion of non-athletes precluded it.

You just can't regulate out every cheating scheme because most people aren't clever enough to anticipate them.
02-01-2019 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.