OT: Jim Calhoun "punished"

Submitted by AeonBlue on February 22nd, 2011 at 4:08 PM

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).

Comments

M2NASA

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."

 

APBlue

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. 

 

RONick

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?

M2NASA

February 22nd, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^

This was a combination of illegal calls, texts, improper benefits, and illegal contact/benefits from a booster - of which Calhoun had knowledge.

The fact that there is no postseason ban and loss of scholarships is a farce.

Trapped In Ohio

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.

bronxblue

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.