OT-NCAA Death Penalty

Submitted by maizenblue92 on March 31st, 2011 at 2:11 PM

We all should know what the NCAA Death Penalty is and if you don't here you go. The question I ask you all is do you think that the NCAA will ever give out the Death Penalty again? I know some of you have voiced your opinions on this saying no because of the way it devastated SMU. I used to agree with this sentiment. 

I used to agree until all of these different allegations came out about upwards of half a dozen schools cheating in some capacity. I then think back to one the primary reasons they gave out the death penalty in the first place. The cheating was so rampant and out of control that they needed to make an example out of a school to get it under control. I still think it is highly unlikely but not as implausable as before. But after what they gave to USC I am starting to think they would at least put it on the table as a legitimate option.

Auburn and OSU would be the prime canidates with the 'Lack of Institutional Control' ruling. But what do you guys think? Yes, no, maybe? 




March 31st, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^

OSU isn't a death penalty case. It's serious, serious stuff, but the only time death penalties can even be given out is a repeated lack of institutional control and, in SMU's case, involved high ranking University officials getting caught and then cheating again.

Auburn might be, depending on whether the rumors about a regent rigging slot machines is true.

Steve in PA

March 31st, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^

my favorite think-tank is based in Auburn

My brother-in-law can see it out his office window. To be fair, I do think the school gets a bum rap because of the sports programs, but it doesn't do anything to change the perception either.

I think if they get whacked it's gonna be brutal since they have a long and well documented history.


March 31st, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^

Um, I think being in Alabama gives the school a bum rap.  Being an in-state school in a state where a quarter of the citizens can't read doesn't scream "elite institution."  And it's not even the best school in that state.


March 31st, 2011 at 8:34 PM ^

The usual caveat of "not to make this political"...an Austrian would call a war defensive only in the case of attack or imminent attack.

Where is the quiz? I haven't seen it. Were your Chicago tendancies related to currency manipulation, or are they using "Chicago" as "conservative"?


March 31st, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^

I wish this board had private messaging.  Anyway:

The quiz is on the LvMI website:



My Chicago tendencies were basically a code for "conservative" as two of them were military questions, and I honestly debated the Austrian answer for both.  But seeing as I was in the military, I went with what I went with. 


March 31st, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^

Well the things that would bring the school down would show it's no good as an institution (not that there aren't good professors, academics and students), but I don't see how a school that big would actually get its accreditation revoked. 

It'd probably be more along the lines of getting rid of the athletic department and replacing every key position in the high level administration (I have no experience with this, but you've gotta think something like this is more logical than having Auburn cease to exist).


March 31st, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^

They're on probation from the SACS (their accrediting body) for shady stuff involving a particular regent. If he's found to be paying certain students (football players) Auburn is in deep shit because Auburn knew he was trouble and never had him removed.

They almost lost their accreditation the first time around; an Auburn alum Governor had to step in and personally guarantee that the shadiness would stop.


March 31st, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^

Thanks for clearing that up, I saw the dates from articles and that it was a while but I wasn't sure how long probation was.

If it's for the same thing, I think they'll have to come down harder. Revoking accreditation doesn't seem to do anyone any good, but I'm sure they can do other things.


March 31st, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

One of the regents, a Mr. Lowder, is under federal investigation for gaming fraud at one of his casinos. Rumor is that the FBI has discovered that there are slots rigged to pay players. There was a thread posted on this a while back, though it was all conjecture and was from an Alabama site. I'll find it if you give me a second.

Edit: LSU's website, TigerDroppings, has this. This is the thread I was talking about.


March 31st, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or individuals directly involved may be held responsible

Auburn - Probably not.
OSU - Definitely not. Hard to lack institutional control when you self report, though I'm sure people here will disagree.

Twisted Martini

March 31st, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

If anybody deserved it recently, Alabama did and they didn't even get close to the Death Penalty.  SMU's hubris (arrogance+ignorance+stupidity) was so over the line that the NCAA had no choice.  SMU basically dared them to pull the trigger and they did.


March 31st, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^

If the allegations about Auburn are true, I don't think the death penalty is enough.  As i said in the Patrick Peterson thread, I think Auburn can recover from one season without football,   Maybe allow them to play and take away 20 or so scollie's a year. 

I believe the NCAA has to do something harsh that scares people from doing this again.  Even get the SEC involved and kick Auburn out.  That would hurt their TV exposure. 


March 31st, 2011 at 6:53 PM ^

A season without football is worse than lost scholarships. All of their starters would transfer, probably without penalty, to other schools. At least one recruiting class would completely fall apart. So, imagine losing 15-20 seniors to eligibility, another 20ish to transfers, then losing a recruiting class so you can't even replenish. They probably can't practice without the possibility of other ramifications from the NCAA, so even the players who stay aren't at the top of their game when the program comes back. So, now you're at about half of your scholarships and your first recruiting class looks like a Purdue recruiting class. How well do you think they are going to do that year? How well do you think they are going to be able to recruit after that? They wouldn't even be able to make it back to 20-below the regular limit in terms of scholarships.


March 31st, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

If the rumors are remotely true though, they deserve it. If you have regents systemically paying players by violating about a dozen federal and state laws and profit to the extent of a national championship, they deserve to go back to the stone age and not come back. 

I'd be all for the NCAA coming out and saying that their goal with the sanctions was to remove Auburn from national and SEC title discussion for a decade.



April 1st, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

JoeyB, you are probably right,  I was just thinking you lose one season and lose your guys, but after that season you start over again and the first couple of seasons may be really tough getting guys and depth.  But, you can recover after the first round, as in after 5 years.  If Auburn is guilty, I would want them to take 20 schollies for like 10 years or so and put them on probation for a long period.  I am rpobably just too harsh and not thinking about this in the right way.

It seems like most schools do not care about the sanctions.  The schools have to police themselves because the NCAA is just not big enough.  Right now, it seems like a joke.  What are your thoughts?


April 1st, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^

I have neither 14,000+ points nor a kangaroo avatar, but I somewhat agree. The death penalty for a school like Auburn would probably mean about a .250 winning percentage for 5-6 years after, and then they would be rolling again. 

I honestly don't know what else can be done though, as the penalties you suggested have never been tried. I'm sure the NCAA could put a school on probation for a decade, or take away massive scholarships for 5-7 years, but they haven't ever seemed to have the inclination.

The most effective thing that could happen, IMO, would be for the SEC to ban Auburn for a few years. No SEC, no anything for Auburn. They would be playing tiny schedules and lose their recruiting battles for a few years, and this would extend the pain, so to speak.


April 1st, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^

That was what I was thinking with the SEC kicking them out.  Tough for the commissioners to do though.  There are schools that don't take the rules seriously.  Something has to be done but there is too much money involved for anything to be done.  Auburn problems seem to ongoing and it's like the wild wild west down there where anything goes. 

NCAA is already looked upon as a joke.  They have to do something or it will get worse.  If they don't make an example, more and more schools will test the limits and something bad is going to happen and heaven forbid that congress would get involved. 

I think the only way to control boosters is for the school to do it.  Schools have to police themselves and there is no incentive for most to do it unless the punishment is so severe.


March 31st, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^

SMU was the Al Capone of college football.      The institution itself facilitated and organized cheating.  The violation that happened with O'Brien and the current Tressel situation do not show that level of disregard for the rules by Ohio State.  


March 31st, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

Too much money in it now.  Having someone like tOSU get the death penalty would screw up the revenue structure for the entire conference.  Heck even Indiana getting it would mess up the cash flow for the B10.  We're all dependent on each other being televised, exposed and getting bowl payouts.  So if tOSU was up for the deaht penalty I'd expect the entire conference to push against it, the BTN to push against it.  Even government officials would push against it.  Imagine the loss of tourism revenue if tOSU gets the death penalty and attendance at Columbus home games fall (plus of course being removed from TV).  

There would be massive pressure by so many groups I just can't see it happening.  The only way I see it occuring is a case where the FBI gets involved and criminal charges hit.  I could see the NCAA slamming a school after that school ends up in serious legal trouble.  Your regular old pay for play type of things are likely to get USC levels of penalties.    



March 31st, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^

If that's the case (and I agree) then USC was light. There need to be multi-year bowl bans on the table, as well as severe scholarship restrictions. And by that I don't mean making USC worried about not having a third string running back who was a high four star, I mean docking huge percentages of scholarships.