Basketball & Football Probation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derf

_ Quite honestly their rule does suck. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the NCAA committee have to get a group together to explain this eligibility rule to them? If so this should have been taken into consideration at some point right? _

---

The committee was formed to discern the difference between a distance learning course and a correspondence course.

Although the difference is ambiguous, the bottom line is our former compliance director should have made a phone call. She didn't.

Had she made the phone call and not gotten a definitive answer, then the ambiguity of the rule(s) really comes into play.

Bottom line is........you CAN'T win with the NCAA infractions committee. That's why it's best to play along with them. If they think you're screwing with them, they screw you worse and there's nothing you can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofParadise

_ Your memory is pretty good.
The sanctions we've been hit with is normal for the use of an ineligible player. Some are saying we hit ourselves too hard. Wrong. We were going to get all that anyway, and we knew it. We were really hoping to get away with not losing a scholarship, but weren't surprised that they included it. _

---

Basketball scholarship timing issue point- I don't believe it has to be 08 and 09. That is what all the conventional media has said. However, I think we can do it in 2009 and 2010. Maybe I am confused on that. Perhaps no impact in 2008 means we will take the loss of two in 2009.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miamicajun32

It is hard to forget about when the next time the Cajuns are in the NCAAs they media will not include those two appearances in talking about Cajuns' basketball. It is also difficult to think that the banners will be coming down.

Clearly, the NCAA wanted to set an example re this minor inadvertant infraction, as long as it was not a major BCS program.

---

Stop there. Using an ineligible player is hardly a minor infraction.

T-shirts minor, you bet.

Ineligible player - nope.

What gets me was how was OG cleared to play in the first place? IF the course was not valid, how did the NCAA give us its imprimatur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofParadise

_ The committee was formed to discern the difference between a distance learning course and a correspondence course.

Although the difference is ambiguous, the bottom line is our former compliance director should have made a phone call. She didn't.

Had she made the phone call and not gotten a definitive answer, then the ambiguity of the rule(s) really comes into play.

Bottom line is........you CAN'T win with the NCAA infractions committee. That's why it's best to play along with them. If they think you're screwing with them, they screw you worse and there's nothing you can do about it. _

---

There is no due process with the NCAA. Jerry Tarkanian learned that years ago (though I think he may have eventually won a lawsuit against them after years of court battles). If you want to play college basketball, it's through the NCAA or really no way else. Having said that, I have to say, if true, that the penalty doesn't seem too excessive to me. As you said, you can't assume you're complying with a rule. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse. Having said this, of course it's true you'll never see this happening to a major school. This is analagous to a minor league baseball player being hit with a 50 day steroid usage ban. It won't happen to Barry Bonds. Top flight schools are major revenue sources who will always be protected. Big time sports, as life, isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLF82

_ There is no due process with the NCAA. Jerry Tarkanian learned that years ago (though I think he may have eventually won a lawsuit against them after years of court battles). If you want to play college basketball, it's through the NCAA or really no way else. Having said that, I have to say, if true, that the penalty doesn't seem too excessive to me. As you said, you can't assume you're complying with a rule. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse. Having said this, of course it's true you'll never see this happening to a major school. This is analagous to a minor league baseball player being hit with a 50 day steroid usage ban. It won't happen to Barry Bonds. Top flight schools are major revenue sources who will always be protected. Big time sports, as life, isn't fair. _

---

If the NCAA cannot give a correct interpretation of it's own by-laws, then how can it hold institutions accountable? There is no question that the university compliance officer had a responsibility to learn or know the rules in regards to credit courses. But when questioned, the NCAA could not give a correct interpretation of it's own by-laws. It's not unitl an infractions committee recieves the list of official findings that a ruling is made in regards to compliance of the course credits. This is unacceptable from a group of so called educated people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OLF82

you can't assume you're complying with a rule.

---

Someone ought to make a sign and post that on Reinhardt Drive.

Regardless of whether we should have been punished severely or not..

This should NEVER happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CajunGuru

If the NCAA cannot give a correct interpretation of it's own by-laws, then how can it hold institutions accountable? There is no question that the university compliance officer had a responsibility to learn or know the rules in regards to credit courses. But when questioned, the NCAA could not give a correct interpretation of it's own by-laws. It's not unitl an infractions committee recieves the list of official findings that a ruling is made in regards to compliance of the course credits. This is unacceptable from a group of so called educated people.

---

If I'm reading BOP correctly, it is the phone call for clarification that was not made for clarification that makes the difference.

The NCAA won't clarify the rule if we don't ask. If we ask and get an unclear answer, then YES you have an agrumement about accountability.

CAN WE PLEASE FIND A PERMANENT AD NOW ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miamicajun32

_ It is hard to forget about when the next time the Cajuns are in the NCAAs they media will not include those two appearances in talking about Cajuns' basketball. It is also difficult to think that the banners will be coming down.

Clearly, the NCAA wanted to set an example re this minor inadvertant infraction, as long as it was not a major BCS program. I can guarantee you that if the Gators had this same infraction last year, the NCAA would not even consider taking away the two nati championships. Same goes for LSU re their final four appearance last year. Same goes for any major program.

While the program is in such a bad state, the recent success is very important to fall back on. I would rather have post season ban for the next two years than lose the championships and NCAA appearances already earned. The likelihood of this current team going to the NCAAs or NIT is remote anyways, but even if they were the favorite in sunbelt this year, I would rather not lose the already earned championships and wins. _

---

Although it is disapointing to have to erase the past success from history, being unable to have a chance at future post season play would not be fair to the kids currently on the team. They had nothing to do with this. You may not think they have a chance at the post season, I guarantee you that they think they do. What type of motivation would they have to improve if your idea were implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofParadise

_ The committee was formed to discern the difference between a distance learning course and a correspondence course.

Although the difference is ambiguous, the bottom line is our former compliance director should have made a phone call. She didn't.

Had she made the phone call and not gotten a definitive answer, then the ambiguity of the rule(s) really comes into play.

Bottom line is........you CAN'T win with the NCAA infractions committee. That's why it's best to play along with them. If they think you're screwing with them, they screw you worse and there's nothing you can do about it. _

---

If a committee was formed to discern the difference between a distance learning course and a correspondence course there is, as you stated, ambiguity of the rule. So why does Potuto state, "The committee is dismayed that the institution failed to comply with a simple, unambigious bylaw and, as a consequence, allowed a star student-athlete to compete for a full season and half of another." Also, if the bylaw is so important why not write it so that there is no ambiguity.

Your last sentence is too true, and it is unthinkable that one cannot question the NCAA without fear of possibly receiving the "death penalty."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajunsmike

_ Although it is disapointing to have to erase the past success from history, being unable to have a chance at future post season play would not be fair to the kids currently on the team. They had nothing to do with this. You may not think they have a chance at the post season, I guarantee you that they think they do. What type of motivation would they have to improve if your idea were implemented. _

---

I agree with you re current players. But from my selfish fan's perspective I would rather the banners stay up and the media be able to give the correct number of sunbelt titles and NCAA appearances.

I wonder how far the NCAA takes this type of punishment. For example, can coaches while recruiting remind recruits of the relatively recent success and show videos or photos of those big games when showing big time atmosphere that can exist in Cajun Dome or showing winning tradition? Can photos of those games be in the athletic center? It is hard to believe the memories of those games can just be wiped out. I was in Orlando for the first NCAA appearance wiped out and I will not forget it ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroCajun

_ Stop there. Using an ineligible player is hardly a minor infraction.

T-shirts minor, you bet.

Ineligible player - nope.

What gets me was how was OG cleared to play in the first place? IF the course was not valid, how did the NCAA give us its imprimatur? _

---

I agree that an ineligible player is a serious rule violation, but because the rule was not clear re his correspondence courses, I believe the infraction was minor and not intentional.

I don't know the details, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that if UL had known the correspondence course did not count, then Greene would have taken the courses necessary to be eligible. He may have had his struggles with his studies, but he would not have just walked away from the game if the course did not count, he would have made it up with eligible courses, right?

If the same thing happened while Greene was with Gators and they won SEC and especially if national title, no way this happens. The rules committee, or whatever it is called, would have found that the ambiguous rule was in fact unclear and given the Gators a break.

Now, the NCAA has made an example out of UL in order to let the rest of the NCAA world understand their first clear interpretation of their otherwise ambiguous rule.