Yahoo! Sports has an article up linking John Blake and Marvin Austin to an agent, including hotel receipts for Austin with the agency's name on them. I don't see how Blake's actions don't land UNC in "lack of institutional control" hell.
OT: UNC is Screwed
Wow, I'm already getting tired of the indiscriminate use of this symbol.
Leave him alone. He is the best. I will always pos you as long as you exist!!!!!!!!!
how did you get 300 pts since i went to bed last night?!
Hardwork and dedication.
This may be the mgoblog's Boxxy.
It may be better if he was a daggit. They don't talk, either.
Maybe this helps with Kris Frost?
Auburn is our main competition there. Some think they lead, but if we keep this good season going, I think he'll be blue.
I'm not part of that "some" just so you know.
Looks like UNC is all but guaranteed the hammer. When it comes down do we have any shot at Mywan Jackson?
three sources said documents show the relationship between Wichard and Blake also extended into the financial realm several times over the past three years. Those instances included:
• At least six wire transfers from Wichard’s private bank – The First National Bank of Long Island – to Blake.
• A $45,000 personal loan to Blake from The First National Bank of Long Island.
• A Pro Tect Management credit card issued in Blake’s name.
I honestly wonder if they'd consider the death penalty if these allegations end up being substantiated.
I believe to be considered for the death penalty the NCAA has to uncover repeated, systematic major violations.
SMU was on probation for earlier infractions, kept playing players, and that's why they were executed.
To my knowledge, UNC hasn't ever had any major football scandals.
The NCAA still has the power to ban schools from competing in a sport without any preliminary sanctions in cases of particularly serious violations.
But it's Wikipedia, so I have no idea if that's true or not, or what standards govern if it is true.
I have no inside knowledge, but my understanding is it would have to be really serious for a first-timer to get the death penalty. Like SMU x3. UNC won't be getting the death penalty for this unless it involves the vast majority of the team and the coaches/athletic department.
They may get hit reasonably hard, but I don't think they get hit any worse than USC, probably not even quite that hard.
I also remeber reading somewhere that the NCAA would try to refrain from handing out the death penalty to a program anymore as they saw how much it damaged SMU's program. I would think that for them to hand out the death penalty again, it would have to be repeated violations year after year when they are already on probation for the same thing. Not saying it can't happen, just that I think they would slap them with some major penalties before shutting down the program for a few years.
SMU x3? My god. That's... SMUSMUSMU.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the fabled death penalty? Are there specific guidelines drawn up, or is this just a mythic wreaking of hell imagined by all but understood by few?
It's the banhammer.
I.e., the recipient of the death penalty is not allowed to have a football program for 2 years.
I believe the program is just banned for one season. SMU didn't field a team for the second season because all their players were true freshman and walkons and the coaching staff thought it would be a safety issue to try and let them play.
You're right that the death penalty was just for one year, and the second year was self-imposed. was just reading the wikipedia article jmblue posted below, which sums it all up nicely.
however the ncaa will be hesitant to drop the banhammer on anyone again as it's taken 20 yrs. for smu to just have a shitty team since the ban....let alone back to the decent program they once were.
The SMU program was shut down for the 1987 season. The following year, SMU was allowed to compete, but without any home games. They also suffered a bunch of other sanctions.
Never mind- my bad
The repeat offender thing is right as a general rule, but if violations are serious enough this requirement has been waived. Even if it isn't waived the school doesn't have to be a repeat football offender. If the field hockey team has had major violations in the last five years, any sport is eligible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_(NCAA)#Current_criteria
If they can show this goes higher than Blake I think it's on the table. If the best they can do is show Davis should have known/turned a blind eye then there is no way.
I'm pretty sure SMU's scandal went "all the way to the top," so to speak. They got busted for paying players over years. That is, the program itself was paying players, not outside boosters or agents. And they got caught doing it repeatedly. Plus, NCAA officials have stated that if they knew what was going to happen to SMU's program (perennial national power house to over 20 years of irrelevance), they probably wouldn't have handed down the death penalty.
UNC is more than likely going to have some severe sanctions come down the pipe, but nothing on the order of the death penalty.
The great thing about SMU is their excuse for continuing to pay the players was that they had promised them this money so they were just keeping up their end of the bargain and weren't going to promise any more players money.
That was the former Governor of Texas, Bill Clements. He seemed to regard the payments almost as a contract he'd made with players. And if you cruise around smu.edu, you'll see a lot of things named after him, the history department, a center for the study of the southwest. Donating lots and lots of money to the university was his way back into the university's good graces after the scandal.
Well SMU got a ton of punishments in addition to the death penalty. The NCAA has considered giving the death penalty for far less. They seriously considered it in the Alabama Albert Means case.
Does anyone know if Craig James took money? If he didn't, how is that possible?!
If he did, he and Doug Flutie are the least relatable two members of a broadcasting team since Warren Sapp and Rainbow Brite.
Regardless. As mentioned earlier, this is worse than USC. So there penalty would like be much worst than what USC got and I'm afraid to know what that would be. I equate USC's sanctions as the "death penalty" in today's world. Totally barring a team from competing destroys the entire program and the NCAA doesn't want that.
I can't believe I'm gonna take the side of UNC....but.....
Some of the punishments that are handed out, relative to $$$ and agents and all that, are absolutely ridiculous.
Why punish a whole program over one bad apple?
Yes, I know UNC had quite a few, given the academic thing as well.
But, the reality is, most of the kids on UNC's team probably do the right things, and now their college experience is ruined. They wanted to go to UNC and compete for championships, now it's likely they won't be able to. They'll have to either choose between staying at UNC and not compete for championships, or compete for championships at a school other than UNC, after having to go through a transfer.
It's basically like those kids getting a letter from the NCAA saying something like:
Your teammate screwed up bigtime. Now you're fucked too, just because.
If it's an issue where a coach is partially at fault for not enforcing compliance, it's still screwy. He can just leave and the school has to deal with the ensuing shitstorm.
It's like dropping an A-bomb when a rocket propelled grenade will do.
I feel bad for all the other kids on UNC's team, that all they did wrong was be in the wrong place at the wrong time, through no fault of their own.
It's not just a coach not enforcing compliance, it's (allegedly) a coach taking money from an agent and potentially funneling players to that agent. That's...really, really bad.
As to your concerns about the players, that can be solved by making it incredibly easy for players to transfer out when this kind of thing happens (like how juniors and seniors at USC were allowed to transfer out because the school's sanctions lasted through the end of their careers).
I agree that's "really, really bad", as you put it.
Inadequate choice of words on my part, but my point still stands, It's punishing the wrong people.
If that proves true, Davis should get a lifetime ban from coaching college football.
As for the players, it's about more than football. They choose a school based on the whole package of what that school has to offer. I won't admit this publicly in real life, but UNC is a good school. It has a nice campus, Franklin St., hot chicks, quality academics, etc. Many of the players who play at UNC probably took all that into consideration, in addition to playing football and competing for championships.
Why should that be ruined for them because someone else screwed up? It's not like colleges are interchangeable, they shouldn't be put in a position by the NCAA of choosing between transferring, and not being able to attend the school they chose, and staying there but having their athletic experience ruined.
It's punishing the wrong people.
is a regime where a school has no incentive whatsoever not to hire John Calipari, or Kelvin Sampson, or -- apparently -- Butch Davis. Under the current rules, if you're an athletic director, and you know Calipari can help you win, but you also know he's probably dirty as hell, you at least have to think twice about hiring him, because when Calipari gets caught for doing what Calipari does, the entire program gets taken down. If that's no longer a part of the equation, then there's no reason not to hire a dirty coach. If he gets caught, he's gone and your school is otherwise fine. If he doesn't get caught, you get to hang banners in the rafters.
They still have the quality academics, the nice campus, hot chicks, Franklin St. They still get to play football, though likely not a bowl. They just become less likely to win, which was never a guarantee anyway.
When members of your coaching staff are running a semi-pro agent service, and allowing/aiding academic fraud, as appears to have been going on here, what else can you do than punish the school? The school can't get off with "sorry, we didn't know". It's their JOB to know.
In these severe cases, the NCAA will allow clean kids an "out", just like they did with USC. Perhaps kids should be a little headier when choosing a school? I can't imagine that there's a program out there taht's sleazy dirty on the back-side (agent/senior player), yet Godly squeeky clean on the front-side (recruiting). How naive do we have to be to assess their last recruiting class as arbitrarily choosing UNC?
Most of the NCAA palyer/agent issues have been just that. Punishment for the player, period. Even so, it's hard to believe the apples around the bad one don't start to rot too (except for maybe a smaller school with less apples).
Massive punishments for the program starting two years later, and freshman/sophomores/recruits can switch schools with no penalty. Let the people who had nothing to do with it get through their eligibility, then drop the nuke.
Tell that to all the Enron employees who lost their job b/c of a couple "bad apples". Innocent people get hurt, that's unavoidable. But these players will be offered a place at other schools, and a free ride to go with it. I don't quite feel that bad for them.
The issue is there are rules and by not playing by them, they've created an unfair advantage over other schools that abide by the rules. It's not like they didn't know they were doing wrong, but when you're that high up on the ladder, there are to be repercussions.
You'd be naive to think that the other players don't know what's going on. Its not like all of these guys don't know the rules or the potential consequences for doing these things, and can't see their team mates getting into this. Ignoring your team mates' rule-breaking (in whatever form - agents, doping, etc) is one thing, but then trying to act as though only those who physically took a sack with a dollar sign on it are the guilty ones and that everyone else involved should be absolved of responsibility is absurd.
i regret that i can only up vote you once. this is THE point!
This isn't a, "I heard your mom needs a place to live so she can live at this awesome house I have and it has nothing to do with you being awesome by the way let me buy you dinner often", kind of thing. This is an, "I heard you were awesome here are large bricks of cash", kind of thing.
Well, this does not look good for UNC....
...are when I miss the Bylaw Blog. Thanks a lot [incredibly stupid SEC-school blogger that I can't remember the name of] for revealing his identity.
Orson shoulda sued.