CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => SEC => Topic started by: rolltidefan on August 10, 2017, 02:55:08 PM
-
http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/ (http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/)
ncaa isn't backing down from allegation:
"The enforcement staff asserts that [redacted] is a credible and reliable source of information and showed himself to be materially correct and consistent regarding the information he reported. Conversely, the enforcement staff asserts that Farrar and [redacted] lack credibility entirely. The enforcement staff also highlights the institution's similar assessment as to their lack of credibility. Although each denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation, the enforcement staff asserts that their denials are contrary to the body of credible and reliable information in the record from various sources. Accordingly, the enforcement staff respectfully suggests that the hearing panel assign their statements little or no weight."
om is, i think, the first major violator that will fall under the new 'guidelines'. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/violator-beware-penalties-new-enforcement-structure-pack-punch)
which means likely: 2-4 years bowl ban, 30+ schollys lost, 5-10 year probation, 5+ years show cause.
-
If the NCAA adds another year to the bowl ban, all their players can walk without sitting a year.
If the NCAA hits Ole Miss with those sanctions, it'll take Eli's grandkids to make them relevant again.
-
since when did the 'enforcement staff' start investigating? where were they with bush and USCw?
the ncaa is about a dang joke.
-
?
USC got some pretty strong penalties. It's still in the recovery process. Recovering from Kiffin too I guess.
The better question is which school will replace Ole Miss in the SEC? They are about to be neutered to the point of being a non-factor and not able to compete on that level.
-
I'll wait for the final announcement. I kept hearing that Miami and UNC were going to be HAMMERED and it hasn't happened.
USC did get hit pretty hard and many thought that was trying to send a message.
-
Maybe that they didn't is more proof that Miami is a helmet?
And UNC is a hoops darling...
-
USC didn't get hit near as hard as they should have by my reckoning... if it hadn't been USC, they'd been hit much harder is my opinion. talking SMU style...
yeah, UNC deserves the hit too.. it doesn't get much uglier than that- falsifying classes/grades basically? these are student's who are athlete's, not athlete's who are student's- but that's how they're treated under the NCAA....
which turns my entire perspective against the NCAA... based on what they've done in the past, UNC should get hammered, and USC should have been hammered harder... however, they 'should' be fair and treat these kids as what they are- professional athlete's. jr league, yes- but professional nonetheless.
-
USC was taken down by one player - Bush - who accepted money but not from the coaches.
Ole Miss is how many? The whole team? All of the coaches?
Different cases.
-
What is the worst thing Ole Miss likely did here? I have not followed it in detail. Do we know players took money from people associated with the program?
I still wonder about some "wealthy fan" who gives them money to go to wherever but has no public or direct association with the program and may never even attend a game. He could do it through a third party.
Player X gets $10 K to sign with Ole Miss and does, and gets the $10 K anonymously.
-
The NCAA response basically says OM was still cheating and lying about it after thet received the initial NCAA letter of allegations. That Freeze and other coaches didn't do their due diligence when a handler claimed he had a previous relationship with recruits he was channeling to OM, that they continued to use the handler after his relationship with recruits was questioned. That they were using burner phones to hide contact with recruits and boosters and that Freeze was aware of all of it.
They are toast.
-
USC didn't get hit near as hard as they should have by my reckoning... if it hadn't been USC, they'd been hit much harder is my opinion. talking SMU style...
yeah, UNC deserves the hit too.. it doesn't get much uglier than that- falsifying classes/grades basically? these are student's who are athlete's, not athlete's who are student's- but that's how they're treated under the NCAA....
which turns my entire perspective against the NCAA... based on what they've done in the past, UNC should get hammered, and USC should have been hammered harder... however, they 'should' be fair and treat these kids as what they are- professional athlete's. jr league, yes- but professional nonetheless.
This is a bizarre take. One player took money from an NFL agent, that's it. It's never even been remotely proven that the coaches knew about it. If anything I thought USC's punishment was on the harsh side. Are you under the impression they did something much, much worse?!?
-
[member=35]DevilFroggy[/member] , yeah, i am/was... but my memory is shit, anymore, since my head was bumped.
the agent thing, and there were more signed than just Bush... there were like three, iirc. that agency fell through after marketing their brand with both Bush and the other two, and on video- all of this was public record from the law suits of the people who were swindled by the agency- which should have made 'investigating' an easy task for the NCAA... just pass by the courthouse and get transcripts...
meanwhile, Carol says straight up he wasn't going to cooperate with the NCAA investigation after ignoring it for a good while, and then curiously bouncing to the NFL from one of the pinnacles of the game @ USC.... at the same time OU/Stoops was getting hammered with the cars sales thing, and all the information the NCAA received was from their 'self reporting'. I clearly recall Stoops saying ".. the takeaway here is simply NOT to self report.. I'll never do that again.".
admittedly, my memory is jacked up- but.. it surely seems these things happened.. and if they did, and if the school knew about it (S&C coach knew iirc, and was in on the scheme, as well as maybe the DLine coach at the time? I think the other two players were DL'men)... that is about as bad as anything we've seen since SMU. well, then happens along Baylor, UNCCH and OM... OM is, just... stupid. UNCCH is devious... wtf was Baylor thinking? ........... and i didn't even touch on the PSU thing, which transcends the absurdity which is the NCAA and makes your skin crawl considering what people will do for the almighty win (inaction in such circumstances being more gross than cheating)- crossing silly collegiate association rules and regulations and decisively into criminal and just plain inhuman treatment of those they were entrusted to protect.
at any rate..... it's not USCw hate- it's cynicism toward the NCAA, instead... for instance, i cringe to think of the things kiffin was doing at UT that went unpunished- and when the NCAA had cause to investigate... kinda lucked out on that one being a UT fan, but i still recognize the hypocrisy of the NCAA when a school that doesn't register near the income as UT brings in for the NCAA slapped for something stupid... and that, imHo, is the meat of the subject, and which binds each of them.
-
A bball player named Mayo also took money. Nothing else in fbball that related to players that I could find.
-
On a slightly different note, it just so happens that the fine folks of the Committee on Infractions are meeting in Nashville today with representatives from UNC, including Roy Williams and Larry "The Hat" Fedora. Should be interesting since UNC is arguing that its sub-standard classes scandal is an academic issue not subject to the purview of the NCAA's enforcement actions. I imagine Syracuse fans will be particularly interested in any punishment meted out to UNC.
-
UNC's claims that the classes weren't related to athletic eligibility ring hollow. Athletes comprise about one percent of NC's students and made up about 85% of the people taking the class. If the NCAA lets them get away with it then they were just looking for an excuse to back down.
-
It IS an academic issue, but somehow claiming it doesn't translate into athletics is specious and ridiculous.
A university could start an entire program of ridiculous courses for athletes and ensure they get first dibs on them.
-
The worst thing would be if coaches knew about all the naughty things, sure. But that's not all. It's also the judgement call of the naughty things happening that the coaches SHOULD know about.
-
It IS an academic issue, but somehow claiming it doesn't translate into athletics is specious and ridiculous.
A university could start an entire program of ridiculous courses for athletes and ensure they get first dibs on them.
Remember Auburn's directed reading sociology program....
-
Remember Auburn's directed reading sociology program....
I don't know the facts behind the UNC thing, but Auburn's was a problem with the Socialogy Department. They created easy classes to keep the Department going because it was on the chopping block by the administration - not as a way to help athletes. The classes were taken by a significant number of non-athletes trying to pull up their grades. Word gets around, and athletes start doing the same.
It was not a good look for academics, but, in Auburn's case, it was NOT an NCAA issue, despite what rivals say. However, the one complaining about it knew the only way to get visibility beyond the water cooler was to tie it to SEC football.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/09/ncaa_finds_no_academic_fraud_w.html
"The NCAA opened its investigation after former Auburn sociology professor Jim Gundlach said Thomas Petee, chairman of the sociology department, allowed regular students and student-athletes to receive grades for little work. Auburn found only 18 percent of the students taking these courses were student-athletes. Only 7.5 percent were football players.
Auburn's 2006 investigation determined did not find an inordinately large number of players were ``clustered'' into specific easy courses. Gundlach has said his research suggested athletes were clustered in certain courses.
A committee of Auburn academic administrators said in late 2006 the school did not offer athletes special treatment."