|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 26, 2018 10:43:33 GMT -8
Sure makes it tougher to compete when at least four teams in your league are buying players and you play by the rules. TSDTR will have its day in the limelight soon. Players don't flock to a school with no basketball history and to a coach with no charisma whatsoever unless Nike and money have something to do with it. The persistent rumor is the asking price for Chris Boucher several years ago was upwards of $50k. That's why so many teams backed off on him after offering. One school didn't. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. It has no legal power to do anything, that's why the FBI has the hammer here. That said, the NCAA needs to crack down on cheating schools. And the only way to do that an automatic postseason ban on Level 1 cheaters. Scholarship loss is the hammer that has to happen. you want to punish a program for breaking the rules, a post season ban is insufficient, because a player will still go to popular school that gets on TV. a player will not pay his own way to a popular program that gets on TV. Cutting scholarships is the only real true mechanism to punish a program. How about both? Recruits are already de-committing from UA. Not because they wouldn't get scholarships. And it would help if the NCAA enforced everything consistently. Passing a loophole that let UNC skate after delaying enforcement for massive athletic-related academic fraud is a joke. Middle Tennessee would have received the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 26, 2018 11:07:32 GMT -8
Scholarship loss is the hammer that has to happen. you want to punish a program for breaking the rules, a post season ban is insufficient, because a player will still go to popular school that gets on TV. a player will not pay his own way to a popular program that gets on TV. Cutting scholarships is the only real true mechanism to punish a program. How about both? Recruits are already de-committing from UA. Not because they wouldn't get scholarships. And it would help if the NCAA enforced everything consistently. Passing a loophole that let UNC skate after delaying enforcement for massive athletic-related academic fraud is a joke. Middle Tennessee would have received the death penalty. The "loophole" has been there for a while and UNC has utilized it "best". The NCAA is not an over site for academic institutions. They have some academic guidelines regarding athletes, but as long as there is not "special courses or benefits" offered to only athletes they have no jurisdiction on how a school runs their academic programs. In many cases the tail has begun wagging the dog. The $$$ have gotten so big and the NCAA's ultimate authority constantly being tested that there is literally no way for the organization to police member institutions... and certainly not in a timely matter. Schools know that are the rules have now become "guidelines", following optional, with a slap on the wrist if caught. Or, better yet, the new status quo... break the rules and self report the minor details sweeping any others under the rug knowing they most likely will not be found. Zona blatantly called out the NCAA when it stated that Ayton would continue to play. The coach was disposable, but the key player that will get us into the Sweet 16 (?) is not. Same allegation, yet the school says "I dare ya". And, if things go per the norm, the tourney will be over before anything happens. The really will anything happen as the federal case will take some time and certain docs will not be released as they are evidence in that case. The NCAA as we all want it to stand for has disappeared long ago... and schools are left to decide, "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em". The institution in every aspect is a joke...
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 26, 2018 11:20:06 GMT -8
The classes were clearly created to keep athletes eligible. The NCAA acted to give itself an out, so it would not have to punich one of the big reasons the NCAA tournament makes so much money, long after the investigation was underway. Several years after the UNC scandal began and in the midst of the NCAA disciplinary process, the NCAA quietly chose to distance itself from oversight responsibility for academic wrongdoing. In 2016, NCAA Rule 10.1(b) was repealed ... An application of Rule 10.1(b), which was on the books until August 2016, would have found UNC knee deep in tar and with little chance to avoid punishment.
After all, the Infractions Committee concluded that “it is more likely than not that student-athletes received fraudulent credit by the common understanding of what that term means. It is also more likely than not that UNC personnel used the courses to purposely obtain and maintain student-athletes’ eligibility.”.Here is an outstanding story on how the NCAA legislated so UNC could skate. www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article182309151.html?ref=yfp
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 26, 2018 11:45:49 GMT -8
The classes were clearly created to keep athletes eligible. The NCAA acted to give itself an out, so it would not have to punich one of the big reasons the NCAA tournament makes so much money, long after the investigation was underway. Several years after the UNC scandal began and in the midst of the NCAA disciplinary process, the NCAA quietly chose to distance itself from oversight responsibility for academic wrongdoing. In 2016, NCAA Rule 10.1(b) was repealed ... An application of Rule 10.1(b), which was on the books until August 2016, would have found UNC knee deep in tar and with little chance to avoid punishment.
After all, the Infractions Committee concluded that “it is more likely than not that student-athletes received fraudulent credit by the common understanding of what that term means. It is also more likely than not that UNC personnel used the courses to purposely obtain and maintain student-athletes’ eligibility.”.Here is an outstanding story on how the NCAA legislated so UNC could skate. www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article182309151.html?ref=yfpFirst, if you read more than one opinion/editorial piece you'd know that the NCAA was never into oversight responsibility... EVER. The UNC case forced their hand to clarify their policies as it was so blatant and public. There were some member institutions wanting UNC's head on a platter and forced the NCAA into investigation that was going to end only one way. The NCAA is many things, but it never has enforced or told schools what classes can or can not be formed. As dirty as it was... the regular student body was also included in the fraudulent credits and any enforcement would have been met with a lawsuit and the NCAA under their own poorly written guidelines would have lost. Again... they are not a legal agency, with legal authority, they do not accredit or watchdog academics. And, "more than likely" was not able to be proven for athletes as UNC "wisely" included all students, who were treated the same as athletes... A scumbag athletic department? What's new. They've been caught cheating since the early 90's. Point being, the NCAA is a figure head agency who's time has run it's course. But, until a large group of member schools decided to break away (not happening with all the network $$$) and form their own association don't see anything changing. Basically TV money is running the show... and the NCAA is the administrative pawn. PS- why I'm happy with 6-6 and better/bowl games... competitive hoops teams going to the tourney/NIT/CBI... baseball leading the conference... softball gaining competitiveness... wrestling regaining elite status... and all sports thriving... allowing our athletes success with integrity. I don't want OSU to be elite on a consistent basis if it means a loss of academic, athletic, and personal morality. But, the NCAA is not the problem... the problem is the member institutions and the media that pays billions to televise yet ignores all the cheating.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 26, 2018 13:21:29 GMT -8
I've read plenty. The NCAA clearly added that loophole to give it an escape clause with the UNC case.
Part of USC's penalties during the Bush era were for the bogus Spanish class the athletic department steered athletes to at a local JC.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 26, 2018 17:31:38 GMT -8
I've read plenty. The NCAA clearly added that loophole to give it an escape clause with the UNC case. Part of USC's penalties during the Bush era were for the bogus Spanish class the athletic department steered athletes to at a local JC. Lol... "clearly added" yep... their intent is pure speculation. SC... ATHLETES... key it was for athletes. And the SC case was almost entirely Reggie Bush based. Not going to argue something I've read 100s of dox and opinions on, and discussed with those familiar with NCAA lawsuits. The interpretation of avoiding the UNC case is one made by those that like to attack the NCAA. But as stated they had/have poorly written policies and academic oversight is not and has never been their purview once applied to all students.
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Feb 26, 2018 19:14:53 GMT -8
Fascinating and believable article. Thanks for posting. Sure thing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 10:10:35 GMT -8
Fascinating and believable article. Thanks for posting. Sure thing... so where is this all going for all of college athletics? This is not just basketball obviously. Sorry i'm going to spew some opinion here. What im really trying to say in bold. Surely, it's going somewhere. Because even if the rules stay the same, that's something. The cheater schools will continue to cheat (in both big sports, ((baseball, who knows, maybe even there a little bit)) and if they see that nothing, not even the FBI prevents them from running amok, this will turn into an even more seedy version of pay for play. Will the non cheating schools see no benefit to competing against rosters full of the most talent money can buy? Already you see the disparity between the SEC and the rest of the college football world. Part of that is geography and part of that are booster cultures that make the paid talent acquisition business so automatic (see the article) , there is no chance for a regular northern school to play by the rules and field a top 25 team. At some point it doesn't pencil out. Not just talking about the Oregon States either. You think the huskies, for example are ever going to do better than they are right now as far as wins and recruiting? I doubt it. I would say this is their ceiling. They will be lucky to ever get in the play-offs and then get their heads beat in. SC is the outlier for the conference as far as recruiting and even they are usually lacking the type of line depth only the SEC or eastern schools get. Anyway- the college football game is now played at a very high level by a handful of schools. Those schools have big, strong, mobile defensive players that shrink the field, stop the run game without having to play a box 8, and can rush the passer with only 3 or 4. In short they are fielding an NFL defense against NCAA offenses. At the highest level the college game has changed. There is no parity between the top 6 or 7 teams and the rest. The gap has widened, because of talent hording (paid recruiting system). The way i see it your second tier teams that are used to getting in the NC mix every few years (your SC's, Florida States, Texas, Auburns) have two choices: They can lean on the NCAA to reform the rules and reign in the Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Florida, Ohio States (good luck) or They can CHEAT HARDER. either way, interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 27, 2018 11:02:09 GMT -8
As a guess there are many, many 100-dollar-bills exchanged near the USC campus.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Feb 27, 2018 11:08:36 GMT -8
There is a story about a Fusky player in the 50's who was drafted. When asked if he was excited about playing in the NFL, he said something to the effect that "he was excited about the NFL, but that he wasn't happy about the pay cut. Then I read a story from the Little O written by Danny M's great-great grandfather, I think, making noise about how the Oregon State football team in like 1905 or that vicinity was made up of ringers and players not even enrolled in classes.
The beat goes on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 11:09:42 GMT -8
As a guess there are many, many 100-dollar-bills exchanged near the USC campus. As i hear it, drugs have gotten a lot cheaper and a 20 spot is all you need. Thanks Mexican Cartel.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Feb 27, 2018 11:31:34 GMT -8
Sure thing... Anyway- the college football game is now played at a very high level by a handful of schools. At the highest level the college game has changed. There is no parity between the top 6 or 7 teams and the rest. The gap has widened, because of talent hording (paid recruiting system). Funny thing is, go back 20, 30, 40 years - it's more or less same schools in the Final AP top 10 that you see these days. IMO, I really don't think much has changed other than the # of zeros in the payout and it's just another generation of boosters "assisting" at the same schools that turn a blind eye. 1973: Notre Dame, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Alabama, Penn St, Michigan, Nebraska, USC, ASU, Houston1978: Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Penn St, Michigan, Clemson, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas, Houston1983: Miami, Nebraska, Auburn, Georgia, Texas, Florida, BYU, Michigan, Ohio St, Clemson 1988: Notre Dame, Miami, Florida St, Michigan, WVU, USC, UCLA, Auburn, Clemson, Nebraska 1993: Florida St, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Auburn, Florida, Wisconsin, WVU, Penn State, TX A&M, Arizona
2018: Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Clemson, Ohio St, UCF, Wisconsin, Penn St, TCU, Auburn
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 27, 2018 12:28:33 GMT -8
The minute the players start earning a salary, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by bennyorange on Feb 27, 2018 13:25:24 GMT -8
The minute the players start earning a salary, I'm done. I've thought that too but I'm sure it's coming and maybe sooner than later. The problem is that even if you pay a stipend there will likely STILL be cheaters for the top of the line talent. I don't see a $100K a year stipend in the cards and that seems to be the price of talent these days.
|
|
|
Post by osuft3 on Feb 27, 2018 14:03:59 GMT -8
There is a story about a Fusky player in the 50's who was drafted. When asked if he was excited about playing in the NFL, he said something to the effect that "he was excited about the NFL, but that he wasn't happy about the pay cut. Then I read a story from the Little O written by Danny M's great-great grandfather, I think, making noise about how the Oregon State football team in like 1905 or that vicinity was made up of ringers and players not even enrolled in classes. The beat goes on. The fusky was Hugh McElhenny, who played for the 49ers and others.
|
|