OT-NCAA Death Penalty
We all should know what the NCAA Death Penalty is and if you don't here you go. The question I ask you all is do you think that the NCAA will ever give out the Death Penalty again? I know some of you have voiced your opinions on this saying no because of the way it devastated SMU. I used to agree with this sentiment.
I used to agree until all of these different allegations came out about upwards of half a dozen schools cheating in some capacity. I then think back to one the primary reasons they gave out the death penalty in the first place. The cheating was so rampant and out of control that they needed to make an example out of a school to get it under control. I still think it is highly unlikely but not as implausable as before. But after what they gave to USC I am starting to think they would at least put it on the table as a legitimate option.
Auburn and OSU would be the prime canidates with the 'Lack of Institutional Control' ruling. But what do you guys think? Yes, no, maybe?
Burn c-bus to the ground.
OSU isn't a death penalty case. It's serious, serious stuff, but the only time death penalties can even be given out is a repeated lack of institutional control and, in SMU's case, involved high ranking University officials getting caught and then cheating again.
Auburn might be, depending on whether the rumors about a regent rigging slot machines is true.
I think if the crux of that famous message board thread on Auburn's cheating ways is even remotely true, the NCAA would give them the death penalty.
Absolutely. Rigged slot machines paid for by the Board of Regents? Coaches brought in because they'd turn a blind eye?
Auburn won't even be a school, let alone field a competitive football team.
Is Auburn a school now?
I'm leaning towards yes because my favorite think-tank is based in Auburn and I don't want to see them harmed if Auburn goes down in flames.
I was just making a (bad?) joke...My uncle taught at LSU, so I know that SEC schools aren't just hosts to rogue athletic programs.
Oh, I was totally kidding. I didn't go to Auburn, just playing along with the joke.
Big East and Big Ten here, no SEC (though if Vandy wanted to throw a scholarship my way I definitely would have).
my favorite think-tank is based in AuburnMy brother-in-law can see it out his office window. To be fair, I do think the school gets a bum rap because of the sports programs, but it doesn't do anything to change the perception either. I think if they get whacked it's gonna be brutal since they have a long and well documented history.
Um, I think being in Alabama gives the school a bum rap. Being an in-state school in a state where a quarter of the citizens can't read doesn't scream "elite institution." And it's not even the best school in that state.
+100 for Von Mises
-180,000 for cheating
Is that in gold or fiat currency?
Dues paying member.
How awesome is that? I made that reference and had no idea we had at least three or four others. Good day on the board, just because of that.
I had never taken the quiz before. I found out today I'm only 89% Austrian (on the 25 question quiz). Apparently the other 11% is Chicago, although question 24 kind of threw me a bit. What exactly would one consider an "offensive war?"
The usual caveat of "not to make this political"...an Austrian would call a war defensive only in the case of attack or imminent attack.
Where is the quiz? I haven't seen it. Were your Chicago tendancies related to currency manipulation, or are they using "Chicago" as "conservative"?
I wish this board had private messaging. Anyway:
The quiz is on the LvMI website:
My Chicago tendencies were basically a code for "conservative" as two of them were military questions, and I honestly debated the Austrian answer for both. But seeing as I was in the military, I went with what I went with.
March 31st, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
Hans Herman Hoppe was at Michigan for a time, although I"m not 100% on board with some of his stuff it's just one of the six-degrees-of-seperation things.
Personally I'm much more familiar with the younger writers. Although you have to use younger as a loose term. I'm more familiar with Block than I am with Hoppe or Von Mises himself.
Auburn is not only a school, but it's a good one. Athletic department? Fuck 'em. The school itself going down is in no way a good thing, though. That will fuck a lot of people's lives up, and destroy a legitimately good institution.
Well the things that would bring the school down would show it's no good as an institution (not that there aren't good professors, academics and students), but I don't see how a school that big would actually get its accreditation revoked.
It'd probably be more along the lines of getting rid of the athletic department and replacing every key position in the high level administration (I have no experience with this, but you've gotta think something like this is more logical than having Auburn cease to exist).
I don't think anyone was really saying that something could or should happen to the school itself. There's no way it would.
They're on probation from the SACS (their accrediting body) for shady stuff involving a particular regent. If he's found to be paying certain students (football players) Auburn is in deep shit because Auburn knew he was trouble and never had him removed.
They almost lost their accreditation the first time around; an Auburn alum Governor had to step in and personally guarantee that the shadiness would stop.
Auburn's SACS probation ended in late 2004. However, if the worst of the rumors swirling around that program prove to be true, Auburn would certainly be looking at another accreditation issue. They'd be facing another potential probationary period from the SACS, at the very least.
Thanks for clearing that up, I saw the dates from articles and that it was a while but I wasn't sure how long probation was.
If it's for the same thing, I think they'll have to come down harder. Revoking accreditation doesn't seem to do anyone any good, but I'm sure they can do other things.
are you talking about? I didn't hear any of this.
All rumor at this point but check out the post two down, I link to the thread here and to TigerDroppings, where this got started.
It apparently is fact that Lowder is under federal investigation, though.
What's this about rigged slot machines? I'm out of the loop apparently.
One of the regents, a Mr. Lowder, is under federal investigation for gaming fraud at one of his casinos. Rumor is that the FBI has discovered that there are slots rigged to pay players. There was a thread posted on this a while back, though it was all conjecture and was from an Alabama site. I'll find it if you give me a second.
Edit: LSU's website, TigerDroppings, has this. This is the thread I was talking about.
I will peruse that TD thread in between heaters from Verlander.
that gave players free debit cards.
the death penalty is too harsh; but life in prison will do.
Perhaps you're confusing them with...
TRUNG CANIDATE?
In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or individuals directly involved may be held responsibleAuburn - Probably not. OSU - Definitely not. Hard to lack institutional control when you self report, though I'm sure people here will disagree.
If anybody deserved it recently, Alabama did and they didn't even get close to the Death Penalty. SMU's hubris (arrogance+ignorance+stupidity) was so over the line that the NCAA had no choice. SMU basically dared them to pull the trigger and they did.
If the allegations about Auburn are true, I don't think the death penalty is enough. As i said in the Patrick Peterson thread, I think Auburn can recover from one season without football, Maybe allow them to play and take away 20 or so scollie's a year.
I believe the NCAA has to do something harsh that scares people from doing this again. Even get the SEC involved and kick Auburn out. That would hurt their TV exposure.
A season without football is worse than lost scholarships. All of their starters would transfer, probably without penalty, to other schools. At least one recruiting class would completely fall apart. So, imagine losing 15-20 seniors to eligibility, another 20ish to transfers, then losing a recruiting class so you can't even replenish. They probably can't practice without the possibility of other ramifications from the NCAA, so even the players who stay aren't at the top of their game when the program comes back. So, now you're at about half of your scholarships and your first recruiting class looks like a Purdue recruiting class. How well do you think they are going to do that year? How well do you think they are going to be able to recruit after that? They wouldn't even be able to make it back to 20-below the regular limit in terms of scholarships.
If the rumors are remotely true though, they deserve it. If you have regents systemically paying players by violating about a dozen federal and state laws and profit to the extent of a national championship, they deserve to go back to the stone age and not come back.
I'd be all for the NCAA coming out and saying that their goal with the sanctions was to remove Auburn from national and SEC title discussion for a decade.
I'm not saying they don't deserve it. I'm saying that losing 20 scholarships is not even comparable to not being able to play football for a year.
No argument there joeyb. Just adding...I'm a fan of most of your posts.
Kangaroo taint has a way of making even the weakest rationalization into MGoGold.
Thanks. Same to you.
JoeyB, you are probably right, I was just thinking you lose one season and lose your guys, but after that season you start over again and the first couple of seasons may be really tough getting guys and depth. But, you can recover after the first round, as in after 5 years. If Auburn is guilty, I would want them to take 20 schollies for like 10 years or so and put them on probation for a long period. I am rpobably just too harsh and not thinking about this in the right way.
It seems like most schools do not care about the sanctions. The schools have to police themselves because the NCAA is just not big enough. Right now, it seems like a joke. What are your thoughts?
I have neither 14,000+ points nor a kangaroo avatar, but I somewhat agree. The death penalty for a school like Auburn would probably mean about a .250 winning percentage for 5-6 years after, and then they would be rolling again.
I honestly don't know what else can be done though, as the penalties you suggested have never been tried. I'm sure the NCAA could put a school on probation for a decade, or take away massive scholarships for 5-7 years, but they haven't ever seemed to have the inclination.
The most effective thing that could happen, IMO, would be for the SEC to ban Auburn for a few years. No SEC, no anything for Auburn. They would be playing tiny schedules and lose their recruiting battles for a few years, and this would extend the pain, so to speak.
That was what I was thinking with the SEC kicking them out. Tough for the commissioners to do though. There are schools that don't take the rules seriously. Something has to be done but there is too much money involved for anything to be done. Auburn problems seem to ongoing and it's like the wild wild west down there where anything goes.
NCAA is already looked upon as a joke. They have to do something or it will get worse. If they don't make an example, more and more schools will test the limits and something bad is going to happen and heaven forbid that congress would get involved.
I think the only way to control boosters is for the school to do it. Schools have to police themselves and there is no incentive for most to do it unless the punishment is so severe.
SMU was the Al Capone of college football.
The institution itself facilitated and organized cheating. The violation that happened with O'Brien and the current Tressel situation do not show that level of disregard for the rules by Ohio State.Too much money in it now. Having someone like tOSU get the death penalty would screw up the revenue structure for the entire conference. Heck even Indiana getting it would mess up the cash flow for the B10. We're all dependent on each other being televised, exposed and getting bowl payouts. So if tOSU was up for the deaht penalty I'd expect the entire conference to push against it, the BTN to push against it. Even government officials would push against it. Imagine the loss of tourism revenue if tOSU gets the death penalty and attendance at Columbus home games fall (plus of course being removed from TV).
There would be massive pressure by so many groups I just can't see it happening. The only way I see it occuring is a case where the FBI gets involved and criminal charges hit. I could see the NCAA slamming a school after that school ends up in serious legal trouble. Your regular old pay for play type of things are likely to get USC levels of penalties.
If that's the case (and I agree) then USC was light. There need to be multi-year bowl bans on the table, as well as severe scholarship restrictions. And by that I don't mean making USC worried about not having a third string running back who was a high four star, I mean docking huge percentages of scholarships.