OT: And now North Carolina football reports NCAA infractions
Academic infractions. Stay tuned...
Link: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AvFxedyhS9B27crXqd7.ZcY…
August 26th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
It looks like disaster time at North Carolina. Kind of like the immediate post-Jihad reaction, but with substance.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
This is why you heard Saban griping a few weeks ago about agents. He was pointing fingers preparing his defense because he knows his program is going before the infractions commitee. He knows that the NCAA always finds something when they open an investigation. It is just a matter of time until you are found guilty of something and you are put on probation. It is a pain the butt to come back from for a coach and the program.
We learned this over the last year.
North Carolina is cooked.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
College football ought to follow the rules, indeed the rules ought to be a lot more strict, and everyone who breaks them should be punished. But they haven't done that for that past fifty years and it sort of seems like they are suddenly coming down on everyone (M, WVU, UNC etc.) all of the sudden. That's not fair, there ought to be consistency.
And, yes, these could be legit, but their just seem to be a lot of these recently.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
The NCAA has lost total control of schools, players, coaches etc. Especially in fotball, look no further than the BCS.
With a new NCAA director, this is their way of dealing with how much they have Fucked up. Find as much as possible and go at them hard.
It is a realy shame. If only they would have been on top of their job the last 20 years.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:34 PM ^
The rules are actually pretty draconian. For example, USC wasn't found guilty of the widespread allegations found at places like SMU, but their program is going to be positively trashed in another year or so. Top quarterbacks aren't going to risk their future pro careers by playing behind a line with only one or two possible backups. Regardless of your feelings about USC, the program took a huge hit and the current players are going to bear the brunt of the punishment.
I actually don't like that contact with agents punishes the school or even the players. I talked to agents for various companies all the time when I was in school--it was expected, that's how every normal college kid gets their first job. I received free dinners and even some airfare. When athletes do it, it's a violation. If a (not necessarily the) point of college is to prepare students to succeed in their future endeavours, why shouldn't students do everything they can do to succeed--and if the opportunity presents itself to get some beer money, then I can't find a moral argument against it.
Obviously, there is a moral argument to be made against jeopardizing your team's chances of success by becoming ineligible, but that's only because the NCAA created rules prohibiting the activity. In a vacuum, it doesn't hurt anyone.
Just my thoughts.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
yeah we aren't talking any competitive advantage here. Bush was already at USC and there is no evidence they enticed him illegally.
I agree totally with your post.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:16 AM ^
I can think of one huge one on top of my head....
Recruiting.
If players were allowed to talk to agents, recieve free things (money cars trips pizza etc), recruits would follow where the money and the agents. I can't think of any logical way how that is not a competitive advantage.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:17 AM ^
I think recruits already do this, to an extent. The best programs are able to recruit more sought after athletes partly because more of their players go to the NFL. Success breeds success, etc.
Agents, and the NFL, find talent regardless.
I understand my view is contrary to most folks, and I've got no problem with the disagreement.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:26 AM ^
The best programs are able to recruit because they are successful PROGRAMS. The agents, money, nfl is not part of the program.
In your thinking, successful programs would follow agents (money nfl etc)
My thinking, agents follow successful programs.
Do you really want college football to be ran by agents or do you want it to be ran by successful programs.?
August 27th, 2010 at 12:34 AM ^
I think that's a chicken or the egg argument. Either way, elite players are going to base their decisions on what they think is best for their future. Part of that is perceived NFL potential.
BTW: it's the chicken.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/
August 27th, 2010 at 12:45 AM ^
It's the fact that it undermines the amateur concept. Which is what I mean when I say the rules ought to be entirely rethought. The NCAA wants to pretend that DI football is just like women's cross country or high school sports -- something fun for kids who are students first ("just about all of us are going pro...") when for the upper echelons of BCS school players football comes first and the universities demand that because it is great publicity and for some schools big money.
If we wanted to be honest, we should limit contact with agents, but also up admissions standards for student-athletes, cut the number of allowed practice hours, and not make kids who don't want to go to school spend years wasted in a classroom before the NFL. Or we should just cut the whole charade and pay these kids. I have a hard time saying this because I love everything that surrounds college sports and all it can do for a school community and would never want to lose that. Anyway, I have no resolution to this issue and I am way off-topic, but I just wanted to explain what I meant by "rules are too lenient." Perhaps it would be better to say the rules are somewhat hypocritical.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^
Perhaps it would be better to say the rules are somewhat hypocritical.
I agree there. The rules propogate the charade of top echelon college football as an amateur sport. It's especially apparent when we fawn over a kid for having ACT scores and a GPA (say 25 ACT and a 3.4 GPA) that would make them almost instant rejections for Michigan's admissions committee if they weren't elite athletes.
Personally, I'm okay with schools admitting kids that have special talents in any realm--even if they are below normal standards, but taking a spot away from a qualified normal kid for a marginal qualifier blatently demonstrates that football players are often in school solely for football. I'd prefer everyone be honest about it.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:07 AM ^
if they'd ever seen so many schools with violations.
In the early 80's, nearly 1/2 of the old SEC and 1/2 of the Pac10 were on some form of probation at the same time. Along with the shenanigans that were latter uncovered at places like OU, TAM and SMU.
College football was filthy dirty back then, all that has changed is schools have become better at hiding things. 18-21 year old kids still drive too nice of cars, still have too much spending money for not being able to have jobs, still somehow graduate or stay eligible though barely taking or attending classes etc, etc.
Its an ugly sport away from the passion and pagentry of football Saturday's in truth.