OT: Jim Calhoun "punished"
This sound familiar? I really don't have an opinion either way, mainly because I'm not familiar enough with the issue to argue one way or another, but it just sounds alot like the sanctions and NCAA response after the investigations last year to a much worse offense (i.e. getting a little too friendly with recruits and HS coaches).
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
Slap on the wrist - absolute bullshit.
Calhoun made illegal calls and texts "hundreds of times"
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
A link or it never happened.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
If you click the word "This" you'll find the link. He's tricky today.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
you're underestimating the sneakiness sir.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
You got me! And I thought I was being all clever and cute. A self-neg is in order. All because of you, AEonBlue. Damn you. Damn you to hell!
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
+1 for self neg? I think so.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6146656
My favorites:
"NCAA investigators said UConn's staff made hundreds of improper calls and text messages to recruits, gave recruits improper benefits and improperly distributed free tickets to high school coaches and others."
"The committee also said Calhoun "overlooked indications" that the booster -- not named in the report, but presumed to be Nochimson -- might be breaking NCAA rules by providing Miles with improper benefits."
and the piece-de-resistance...
"Thomas said a postseason ban was considered, but the committee was not swayed because the case involved a high-profile coach and program."
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
"high profile coach and program" Wait...What? How is that ok?
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^
*double-take*, I think I read that differently the first time...
I thought it was saying the committee didn't take the fact that it was a "high profile coach and program;" that it didn't matter who it was, it would have been the same penalty across the board.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^
Wasn't this the same thing that Indiana's coach and eventually got them sanctioned?
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:43 PM ^
Sampson was a repeat offendor. He received the slap on the wrist for his actions at Oklahoma, shortly before taking the IU job. His second penalty resulted in a show-cause penalty.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
The committee chair on infractions says: "We think the penalty is appropriate. The head coach should be aware but can't be aware of everything. However, the head coach bears that responsibility."
Of course he bears that responsibility. Wouldn't a just penalty not only be equal to the level and severity with which said rule is broken, but also be an incentive to other coaches who may consider breaking that rule, though? I can't imagine this punishment would persuade any coach who's "competitive edge" may outweigh their integrity and principles.
On the heals of the Bruce Pearl farce, this is a little much to stomach. Shame on me, I suppose. These things shouldn't surprise me anymore.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^
Why am I always shocked? I understand that money talks... but aren't there at least some sort of guidelines that need to be followed in this type of situation?
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
I'm frustrated with myself for being frustrated with the NCAA's infraction committee's for having no teeth in the punishments. This just sucks.
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
......to be a punishment until his colleagues in the Big East can at least vote on which games he will not be at. This "punishment" is BS.
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
That would be awesome. "Surprise, Mr. Calhoun; you're sitting out for Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Georgetown. Good luck getting a bye into the BIg East tournament."
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
You all seemed to miss the fact that UCONN already self imposed sanctions on themselves last year for this. Plus the kid who this is all about never even suited up for the team. IMO a postseason ban would be way too much for something they didnt even benefit from.
February 22nd, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^
Punished? What is this thing you call punished?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^
they already had reduced scholorships and time plus they are on probation, and now they've been reduced more. i just think that a postseason ban would have been overkill
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
I'm not really surprised anymore by rulings like this. Just pay the kids, let everyone recruit however they want, and just get over this all talk of amateurism. Because right now, acting like the NCAA actually stood up for themselves and will be tough is just foolish.