spoiler alert: i linked this
I haven't seen much posted here about APR lately. It appears this is about to hit UConn hard. Their request to the NCAA for a waiver allowing them to play in the 2012-2013 post-season has been denied. LINK: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7562956/ncaa-denies-connecticut-huskies-request-apr-waiver-2013-postseason
Assuming their appeal is not granted, that would be huge. I don't understand all the APR implications, but if teams start to become ineligible for either the Bowl season or for the NCAA tourney, or both, that would be a significant penalty. If conferences voted not to give a financial share to ineligible teams, that would sting even more.
I don't know all the issues involved, but banning teams from the post-season for a failure to perform academically is a tremendous way to make athletes attending school less of a sham.
Link to source, copy/pasting the entire thing because it's a press release, not ESPN content.
The Big Ten Presidents and Chancellors express their sincere concern for any harm done to innocent young victims and their families. Protection of our children is one of society’s most central responsibilities and institutions of higher education should be particularly vigilant. We are committed to examining our own institutions to assure that effective measures are taken to assure the safety of children on our campuses.
It has been approximately one month since the initial release of the Grand Jury report in the Penn State matter and a number of federal, state and institutional investigations have been launched. While it is premature to reach any conclusions regarding civil or criminal liability arising out of these events, there does appear to be sufficient information to raise significant concerns as to whether a concentration of power in a single individual or program may have threatened or eroded institutional control of intercollegiate athletics at Penn State.
As a result, the COP/C has determined that:
- It will gather and review the facts arising out of the allegations in the Grand Jury report that pertain to matters of institutional control, ethical conduct and/or other compliance related issues
- It will request from Penn State University and the NCAA that Big Ten legal counsel be allowed to participate in the investigations or reviews, as the case may be, being conducted by Penn State and the NCAA as pertain to these issues
- It will reserve the right to impose sanctions, corrective or other disciplinary measures in the event that adverse findings are made in the areas of institutional control, ethical conduct and/or other Conference related matters
In addition, the COP/C discussed the imperative of maintaining the public's trust in the integrity of its member institutions and, in earning and deserving this trust, the importance of asserting each institution’s control over its intercollegiate athletics programs. The COP/C recognized and acknowledged that from time to time its institutions have failed to maintain the proper control of their athletics programs and that whenever this occurs at one institution in the conference, due to the common bonds and shared values of the members of the Big Ten, each other member of the conference is impacted. Accordingly, the COP/C has directed the conference to initiate an immediate review of the fundamental issues and systems affecting intercollegiate athletics, including the serious issues relating to the institutional control of athletics. It intends for this review to lead to the consideration of a common set of "stress tests" or other criteria that could be applied by the conference to its member institutions (a) to insure that each member is responsible and accountable to the collective membership of the conference for the control and operation of its intercollegiate athletics programs as well as (b) to prevent anyone, whether a trustee, administrator, faculty member, athletic director, coach, booster or otherwise, from eroding the effectiveness of an institution’s practices and procedures designed to protect the institution’s integrity and control over its intercollegiate athletic programs. The COP/C intends for the review to be completed and for the proposed standards, stress tests and other criteria, along with the proposed enforcement procedures and penalties, to be presented to it for consideration at a special meeting to be held in spring 2012.
So according to this piece from the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Ohio State mentioned five self-imposed sanctions in its response to the NCAA:
• Vacating the 2010 season, including the Sugar Bowl win. According to Ohio State, this means the entire 12-1 season, making Ohio State 0-0 last year.
• Vacating the 2010 Big Ten title, originally shared with Wisconsin and Michigan State with a 7-1 conference record.
• Suspending several players for games during the 2011 season, as was originally done in December.
• Seeking and getting the resignation of football coach Jim Tressel.
• Two years of probation.
Now, we all know that vacating wins is standard practice in situations regarding eligibilty of players, but vacating losses seems like a new one to me. What's worse is that it allows Ohio State to not have to claim the loss or the game played in their all-time record. That seems like having their cake and eating it too. Has anyone ever heard of a school vacating its losses? Could schools just start vacating their losses and claim the game never happened for one reason or another? Could Michigan go in and vacate the 2010 OSU loss on the grounds that Ohio State claims the game never happened?
I know there's a tinge of sarcasm in this, but I am trying to figure out if this has precedent.
Scott Loeffler used to say "I don't negative recruit, except for one school.... Because they f***ing cheat... He wears a sweater vest."
He would mention that the dude is basically a phony. The sweater vest, WWJD bracelet, clean cut thing was a big front. I think when you hear it from someone that recruits against him, is part of the whole coaching network, there's some juice to it (rival school or not).
I was hearing the same type of stuff about fulmer. Talking to some of his employees and former recruits, it turned out to be legit. His recruiting pitch was to ask players what their favorite car was.
So no, it wasn't all tin-foil conspiracy theorists down on Tressel.
Anyway, I think Brady Hoke is one lucky guy. I don't think he was going to have a winning record against Tressel. I don't think it's going to happen against Kelly either. But hey, we may have a shot at OSU now.
With all the delirious excitement/dread/photoshopping surrounding Tressel's resignation and the SI article further illuminating the Pryor fiasco, I wonder how all of these allegations will affect OSU's very highly-ranked basketball team. I don't remember if specific names were mentioned, but I do remember reading reports of athletes on the basketball team also receiving tattoos and nice car deals, or at least the insinuation finding some purchase with sources. It seems highly unlikely that the abuses we've seen perpetrated by the football team are restricted to just those athletes, as the basketball team has been at least as successful over the years as the footballers, and is a sport were violations occur frequently with high-end players.
I wouldn't be surprised if once the smoke clears, we see Thad Matta having to answer some very tough questions about some of his one-and-done players with questionable pasts (Byron Mullen, I'm looking at you). If the Lack of Institutional Control claim is brought against OSU for football and incriminating evidence surfaces for the basketball team as well, you may be able to see the resulting crater in Columbus from North Campus.
This should be interesting. My understanding is they are appealing the scholarship reduction portion of the penalty. How long is the NCAA going to wait before making a decision. If the scholarship reduction holds they are already 8 players over the limit.
I wish I could hear Lane's recruiting pitch when a kid says, "I undertand you're appealing the scholarship reduction, but what happens to MY scholarship if the NCAA updates their original ruling?"