As a clean school (absent Michael Rosenberg witch hunts) this should bode well for UM relative to others in the future.
NCAA approves tougher sanctions -
the University of Miami's athletic department turned into a heap of rubble, and probably Chip Kelly being forced out at Oregon. Until then, this is just more of the same tough talk they spewed after USC and before Ohio (not to mention the Auburn non-ruling).
This exactly. The NCAA could have the power to shut an entire athletic department, but it matters not unless they use it. As I understand it, the NCAA is not giving itself new investigative powers, it is just adding new punishments.
Take the Cam Newton situation (at least as I remember it). The problem wasn't that the NCAA didn't have tools at its disposal to punish Auburn or Newton, it was that the NCAA bent over backward to find that Newton the younger wasn't responsible.
Same thing with USC and the Reggie Bush issue (again, as I remember it). The problem was not that the NCAA did not have a way to punish Bush or USC. In fact, the NCAA did punish USC. The problem was that until the deposition of Michael Michaels came to light in the civil litigation between Bush and Lloyd Lake, the NCAA could not even get in the door. If Bush had settled that litigation earlier, the Michael Michaels deposition might not even have come to light.
That does not even get into the Oregon/OSU issue of the (perception at least) that the NCAA is not even trying to investigate.
I have a tough time believing they will be tougher on schools, especially the big ones and mainly the SEC. It's about money and will always be about money.
Sure, they approved them, the question is whether their investigations will yield enough evidence that they'll ever feel comfortable in implementing them. I think the biggest problem is this:
"The committee on infractions could proceed under the new standards or could apply the penalties under the old standards, based on whatever is more beneficial to the institution," Strobel said.
They should be less concerned with what benefits the institution (which I take to mean the cheater, not the NCAA), and more concerned with justice.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather they use an unwarranted sledgehammer than a safe tack hammer.
The same teams will continue to cheat.
We are NOT kidding this time. I know we've said before we're going to get tough and didnt but this tme we mean it. No seriously...we MEAN it. Tough, tough, tough are we. You will not finder a tougher bunch of law-enforcing bad-guy busters than us. We have laid down the law and God help the rule breaker that tries to step out of line. We will come down hard....HARD we say...and show everybody that this time we arent fooling around. If you're breaking rules.....hell if you're even thinking about breaking rules....well you better stop and think twice cause when it comes to cracking down on schools not doing what they should then look out cause the hammer is about to fall.
Wasn't there a story that was supposed to come out today about Auburn paying a current freshman?
There are lots of rumors around the state of Alabama regarding Auburn and Memphis and a former volleyball coach but nothing confirmed. I don't know if anything will come out of it.
Also the NCAA is checking out Foley High (near Mobile, AL) because of some possible activity by a University of Alabama assistant.
NCAA = Need Cash Attend Auburn still holds true.
When Emmert actually gives BFF/Mentor Gordon Gee and his little school in Columbus a punishment that won't result in them being one of the top two teams in their first year of eligibility after "punishment," I will believe that he really wants to reform college sports.
Until then, he is just another PR stiff telling the world what it wants to hear.
I'm not kidding this time. I really will turn this car around.
end your precious field trip pretty damn quick.
I love the bit about tougher eligibilty requirements for freshmen and jucos and tying academic performance to postseason eligibility. You have to actually go to class and get good grades to play college sports, now, Georgetown basketball.
NCAA should crack down on recruiting violations more than anything else. That's what really creates a competitive advantage. Once someone is already at a school, I really don't care if they get a free meal or a free tattoo. Cam Newton gets a briefcase full of cash and the NCAA can't find anything? Give me a break. You can't convince me somebody not originally from Alabama wants to live and go to school in Auburn.
How many times has a northern school had a recruit ready to sign only to take a visit to some bum-phuck southern school and then miraculously commit. How many ex-Auburn players have to admit to getting paid before the NCAA finally steps in? And then naturally, teams like Michigan get busted for some BS practice time violation.
I remember the worst punishments when I was growing up weren't punishments at all. The worst was the guilt trip.
"We're not even really mad. We're just...just...disappointed in you. We thought you were better than this. Like we never had to worry about any of this stuff with you, but I guess we were wrong. You just need to understand that your actions hurt other people sometimes, and this time, you really hurt us."
That always made me feel like the biggest letdown to my parents. Unfortunately I do not think these coachs that knowingly commit infractions are too concern with how disappointed the NCAA will be in them.
This has always been one of the most frustrating things about college sports to me and I hope this will stop or at least decrease the amount of cheating
Hegel's retributive justice holds that each man is a rational actor, and when a rational actor asserts his own will/desire at the expense of everyone else, he essentially posits a right. Therefore, in order to acknowledge the rationality of the rational actor, we must accept the right that he posits and apply it directly to him.
So what I'm saying is that:
1) Every conference outside of the SEC should have 5 years to sign 160 athletes per each football program;
2) Brian Kelly should be made to stand in a manlift twice as high as Mr. Sullivan's in inclement weather that causes it to tip over;
3) Rules holding in place the NCAA's stronghold/monopoly over college sports (e.g., student-athlete agreements to unknowingly give away their rights of publicity, etc....) should be relaxed such that erstwhile "rule breakers" can get in on some of the profits.
The owl of minerva flies at dusk.
And WD writes yet another post that somehow passes the eye test through cunning use of faux-intellectualism.
My head hurts from trying to piece this together. This would be the rare instance where style should overcome substance a tad more
You must be new to my posts. That's my schtick - all style; no substance. All calories; all empty. All chocolate covered poop; no food.
So if you're accusing me of not living up to my own standards, well then I'll have to take it as a compliment.
Here is the NCAA's description of the four-tier approach - (LINK)
One of the other things it outlines, as the ESPN article touches on, is how the process will work (or not) for cases currently in process. Among the purported enhancements, there is this:
"Increases the Division I Committee on Infractions from 10 to as many as 24 voting members from which smaller panels will be assembled to review cases more quickly and efficiently."
I would be interested to know exactly where they were going with this one in particular. The structure of this might be critical to what "quickly and efficiently" really means here. Would they actually take multiple cases under consideration, select panels to review them, and then they meet to report out? Will the panel of 24 (potential, of course) members break up a case and research individual charges within it? I was curious about this one because it seems like this is could be one of the potential weak links in the new structure, or at least a place where the waters could get muddied.
One thing they are trying to abandon, per the article, is the "presumption of knowledge" when it comes to violations and instead focusing on responsibility, thereby allowing them to essentially pass judgment based on a specific bylaw. Supposedly, if I grasp the advertised ideal correctly, the idea here is to do what they do to those of us in management - if someone under you is not performing or doing something "unethical" or "not in compliance", they come after you first and ask why. If the answer is unsatisfactory, both (or all) are in trouble. It's a great notion, but I would like to be sure that those on the revise Committee On Infractions understood the philosophical shift implied here and could consistently apply such a thing. That, and actually did this in such a way that it would make a statement to others.
The NCAA reminds me of that geeky college RA that always threatened to write people up and get them punished. Threats are made and some people respect them enough to behave themselves afterward, but most people don't have enough respect for the person to stop breaking the rules and eventually someone goes too far and basically becomes a sacrificial lamb.
How the NCAA see's itself:
How everyone see's the NCAA:
NCAA Promises More Hot Air, More Saber Rattling
Im Pete Carroll and I approve this message