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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

(02-01-2019 01:24 PM)bullet 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.

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.

Black,White, Asian, Frats all took advantage of a easy A .

(02-01-2019 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  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.

But that's what these other stop-guards are for. If the school does not have governance to cover it, and the NCAA can't rule on it, it still technically spells out some sort of fraud, which the accrediting body is there to suss out.

Yet, as already covered, they're just in the business of writing really stern letters and attacking the low hanging fruit of academe, rather than the heavyweights.

(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.

This was a one tutor problem. Not an institutional problem. Penalties are off the charts for this, and are being appealed.

(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!

Missouri assisted the NCAA in every way possible and still got stomped on. Looks like an isolated issue and not institutional misconduct. They will have to fight Missouri on this one. Some of those penaltes are just plain ridiculous.

It's a violation, but nothing compared to most of the crap going on elsewhere. It's a shame too, Mizzou has a pretty well-run athletic department (one of the few to make a profit IIRC).

Interesting article from SB Nation about Mizzou and the NCAA:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ments-ncaa

(02-01-2019 01:52 PM)arkstfan 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.

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.

UNC had an argument, but it was a silly one. Put it in a court room and the jury would laugh at them.

Fight it in public and the whole country would laugh at them.

The NCAA as a governing body is a total joke. Their enforcement wing has the consistency of an NFL zebra crew.

(02-02-2019 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 01:52 PM)arkstfan 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.

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.

UNC had an argument, but it was a silly one. Put it in a court room and the jury would laugh at them.

Fight it in public and the whole country would laugh at them.

You have to get past directed verdict to reach a jury.

(02-01-2019 02:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

It sucks the NCAA took out their frustrations on a SEC school but I personally had no problem with it. Good job NCAA

https://newsok.com/article/3772785/misso...-no-favors

Quote:Which is fine. If the Big Ten calls with an invitation, Missouri would accept so fast, it would make heads spin. And academics would be a major reason why. But throwing your current league members under the bus, well that’s bad form.

Nixon’s quote: “When you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

I hope Baylor receives more severe penalties but I'm not holding my breath.

(02-04-2019 08:21 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 02:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

It sucks the NCAA took out their frustrations on a SEC school but I personally had no problem with it. Good job NCAA

https://newsok.com/article/3772785/misso...-no-favors

Quote:Which is fine. If the Big Ten calls with an invitation, Missouri would accept so fast, it would make heads spin. And academics would be a major reason why. But throwing your current league members under the bus, well that’s bad form.

Nixon’s quote: “When you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

I hope Baylor receives more severe penalties but I'm not holding my breath.

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

I'd say the world has changed in 10 years and you couldn't find anything current to troll with.

(02-04-2019 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 08:21 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 02:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

It sucks the NCAA took out their frustrations on a SEC school but I personally had no problem with it. Good job NCAA

https://newsok.com/article/3772785/misso...-no-favors

Quote:Which is fine. If the Big Ten calls with an invitation, Missouri would accept so fast, it would make heads spin. And academics would be a major reason why. But throwing your current league members under the bus, well that’s bad form.

Nixon’s quote: “When you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

I hope Baylor receives more severe penalties but I'm not holding my breath.

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

I'd say the world has changed in 10 years and you couldn't find anything current to troll with.

Missouri will be an SEC school for the foreseeable future. The B1G is not interested and quiet frankly, I don’t think there’s any interest from Missouri going to the B1G. But at least Mizzou has enough cache to go by themselves to any conference and not rely on a big brother to make the case for them.

(02-04-2019 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 08:21 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 02:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

It sucks the NCAA took out their frustrations on a SEC school but I personally had no problem with it. Good job NCAA

https://newsok.com/article/3772785/misso...-no-favors

Quote:Which is fine. If the Big Ten calls with an invitation, Missouri would accept so fast, it would make heads spin. And academics would be a major reason why. But throwing your current league members under the bus, well that’s bad form.

Nixon’s quote: “When you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

I hope Baylor receives more severe penalties but I'm not holding my breath.

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

I'd say the world has changed in 10 years and you couldn't find anything current to troll with.

Call it what you want. I'm not upset Missouri got hurt. I just wish the NCAA could act on Baylor.

(02-04-2019 08:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 08:21 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 02:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

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

If rooted for North Carolina, I would not have commented on Missouri issues.

It sucks the NCAA took out their frustrations on a SEC school but I personally had no problem with it. Good job NCAA

https://newsok.com/article/3772785/misso...-no-favors

Quote:Which is fine. If the Big Ten calls with an invitation, Missouri would accept so fast, it would make heads spin. And academics would be a major reason why. But throwing your current league members under the bus, well that’s bad form.

Nixon’s quote: “When you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

I hope Baylor receives more severe penalties but I'm not holding my breath.

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

I'd say the world has changed in 10 years and you couldn't find anything current to troll with.

Missouri will be an SEC school for the foreseeable future. The B1G is not interested and quiet frankly, I don’t think there’s any interest from Missouri going to the B1G. But at least Mizzou has enough cache to go by themselves to any conference and not rely on a big brother to make the case for them.

It's better to have a big brother than no brother at all. The SEC took Mizzou after they quit begging the Big 10. Missouri should be a Big 10 team but the Big 10 didn't want them

Sorry about the formatting:

From JRsec

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

My response:

I won't argue that the B1G may not invite KU (and didn't Mizzou) or that either (or both) did not bring whatever the B1G thought "valuable", but I would argue that it's NOT because the B1G already penetrate the state markets of both.

Since Nebraska left the B12, there is little Nebraska coverage in KC. Most all is KU, Mizzou, and K-State. The KC tv market doesn't include any Nebraska counties and given the locations of Omaha & Lincoln TV stations, just the areas served by those (which include very small areas and very small populations in "remote" parts of Kansas & Missouri) are the only possible "Big10" areas. While Nebraska was in the B12 they were of course covered because they were in the same league as KU & MU, but coverage was even then predominately KU & MU. But now that NU is "gone", so is their coverage in KC, at least. The next closest B1G school to KC (after Nebraska) is Iowa...and has NEVER been covered in KC to any extent.

When I have been in the KC Metro area, I have seen few signs of Nebraska. In my rough (and unscientific) estimate looking for window decals/bumper stickers/license plate holders, etc., I see about 40% KU, 30% MU, 15% KSU and 15% various (UMKC, Missouri State, and various other schools including other B1G & B12 schools mainly.)

I can't speak for the St.Louis area as I don't know how much coverage UofI receives/d in St.Louis.

As to KU, the B1G may (or has) decided that's it's just too small a market to begin with and/or what KU offers (presently of course, basketball only) is not what they "need". With MU, I think the B1G thought they would "always" be available when/if the B1G wanted them and were blind-sided when the SEC took them.

In any event, I think though the B1G obviously may have/had their reasons for not inviting KU and MU, the premise that the B1G somehow penetrates Kansas & Missouri was/is NOT the reason, in my opinion.

(02-04-2019 11:53 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Sorry about the formatting:

From JRsec

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

My response:

I won't argue that the B1G may not invite KU (and didn't Mizzou) or that either (or both) did not bring whatever the B1G thought "valuable", but I would argue that it's NOT because the B1G already penetrate the state markets of both.

Since Nebraska left the B12, there is little Nebraska coverage in KC. Most all is KU, Mizzou, and K-State. The KC tv market doesn't include any Nebraska counties and given the locations of Omaha & Lincoln TV stations, just the areas served by those (which include very small areas and very small populations in "remote" parts of Kansas & Missouri) are the only possible "Big10" areas. While Nebraska was in the B12 they were of course covered because they were in the same league as KU & MU, but coverage was even then predominately KU & MU. But now that NU is "gone", so is their coverage in KC, at least. The next closest B1G school to KC (after Nebraska) is Iowa...and has NEVER been covered in KC to any extent.

When I have been in the KC Metro area, I have seen few signs of Nebraska. In my rough (and unscientific) estimate looking for window decals/bumper stickers/license plate holders, etc., I see about 40% KU, 30% MU, 15% KSU and 15% various (UMKC, Missouri State, and various other schools including other B1G & B12 schools mainly.)

I can't speak for the St.Louis area as I don't know how much coverage UofI receives/d in St.Louis.

As to KU, the B1G may (or has) decided that's it's just too small a market to begin with and/or what KU offers (presently of course, basketball only) is not what they "need". With MU, I think the B1G thought they would "always" be available when/if the B1G wanted them and were blind-sided when the SEC took them.

In any event, I think though the B1G obviously may have/had their reasons for not inviting KU and MU, the premise that the B1G somehow penetrates Kansas & Missouri was/is NOT the reason, in my opinion.

That's okay. You'll have value elsewhere.

(02-05-2019 12:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 11:53 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Sorry about the formatting:

From JRsec

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

My response:

I won't argue that the B1G may not invite KU (and didn't Mizzou) or that either (or both) did not bring whatever the B1G thought "valuable", but I would argue that it's NOT because the B1G already penetrate the state markets of both.

Since Nebraska left the B12, there is little Nebraska coverage in KC. Most all is KU, Mizzou, and K-State. The KC tv market doesn't include any Nebraska counties and given the locations of Omaha & Lincoln TV stations, just the areas served by those (which include very small areas and very small populations in "remote" parts of Kansas & Missouri) are the only possible "Big10" areas. While Nebraska was in the B12 they were of course covered because they were in the same league as KU & MU, but coverage was even then predominately KU & MU. But now that NU is "gone", so is their coverage in KC, at least. The next closest B1G school to KC (after Nebraska) is Iowa...and has NEVER been covered in KC to any extent.

When I have been in the KC Metro area, I have seen few signs of Nebraska. In my rough (and unscientific) estimate looking for window decals/bumper stickers/license plate holders, etc., I see about 40% KU, 30% MU, 15% KSU and 15% various (UMKC, Missouri State, and various other schools including other B1G & B12 schools mainly.)

I can't speak for the St.Louis area as I don't know how much coverage UofI receives/d in St.Louis.

As to KU, the B1G may (or has) decided that's it's just too small a market to begin with and/or what KU offers (presently of course, basketball only) is not what they "need". With MU, I think the B1G thought they would "always" be available when/if the B1G wanted them and were blind-sided when the SEC took them.

In any event, I think though the B1G obviously may have/had their reasons for not inviting KU and MU, the premise that the B1G somehow penetrates Kansas & Missouri was/is NOT the reason, in my opinion.

That's okay. You'll have value elsewhere.

Mizzou in the SEC is long settled and nothing is tentative about it. There are "what if" and "should be" stories with multiple schools such as FSU, Miami, Penn State, Louisville, and a bunch of others. There may be future shifts among P5 conferences, but relying on missed opportunities from 10, 20, and 30 years ago won't define new shifts. Unless something does generate major upheaval, no members of the BIG or the SEC are leaving their respective conferences, including BIG to the SEC and SEC to the BIG.

(02-04-2019 11:53 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Sorry about the formatting:

From JRsec

What's this? A 10 year old troll? Missouri didn't head to the Big 10 because they weren't invited. The reason they weren't invited is because you don't buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free which is exactly why Kansas won't be invited either. Neither of them add enough value to the Big 10 to be invited. And part of that reason is because the Big 10 already penetrates the state markets of both. So what if they don't get the in state rate. They get enough that inviting them isn't their best option.

My response:

I won't argue that the B1G may not invite KU (and didn't Mizzou) or that either (or both) did not bring whatever the B1G thought "valuable", but I would argue that it's NOT because the B1G already penetrate the state markets of both.

Since Nebraska left the B12, there is little Nebraska coverage in KC. Most all is KU, Mizzou, and K-State. The KC tv market doesn't include any Nebraska counties and given the locations of Omaha & Lincoln TV stations, just the areas served by those (which include very small areas and very small populations in "remote" parts of Kansas & Missouri) are the only possible "Big10" areas. While Nebraska was in the B12 they were of course covered because they were in the same league as KU & MU, but coverage was even then predominately KU & MU. But now that NU is "gone", so is their coverage in KC, at least. The next closest B1G school to KC (after Nebraska) is Iowa...and has NEVER been covered in KC to any extent.

When I have been in the KC Metro area, I have seen few signs of Nebraska. In my rough (and unscientific) estimate looking for window decals/bumper stickers/license plate holders, etc., I see about 40% KU, 30% MU, 15% KSU and 15% various (UMKC, Missouri State, and various other schools including other B1G & B12 schools mainly.)

I can't speak for the St.Louis area as I don't know how much coverage UofI receives/d in St.Louis.

As to KU, the B1G may (or has) decided that's it's just too small a market to begin with and/or what KU offers (presently of course, basketball only) is not what they "need". With MU, I think the B1G thought they would "always" be available when/if the B1G wanted them and were blind-sided when the SEC took them.

In any event, I think though the B1G obviously may have/had their reasons for not inviting KU and MU, the premise that the B1G somehow penetrates Kansas & Missouri was/is NOT the reason, in my opinion.

The B1G sold out by inviting Nebraska. They chose a national brand and turned their back on their own academic standards. They could have invited all three... Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas and locked down the midwest. Like the Pac 12, they simply had no foresight. Missouri is happy. and Kansas will be fine.

NCAA will never punish the following schools because it will shake up the foundation of NCAA. Thus they are immune or just getting slap on the wrist:

Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Florida, LSU, Alabama, UNC, Duke and Texas.

The highest level of schools that NCAA is allowed to punish are:

Any PAC12 school, Auburn, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State, Missouri and Baylor.