So wait!Originally Posted by Houston Chronicle
The football team is not being punished for a REAL violations but is being punished because the actions of a trainer COULD have turned into violations.
That is sad.
So wait!Originally Posted by Houston Chronicle
The football team is not being punished for a REAL violations but is being punished because the actions of a trainer COULD have turned into violations.
That is sad.
Your memory is pretty good.Originally Posted by BrockMeaux
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.
Originally Posted by Turbine
If she had to issue a disclaimer on what the NCAA committee came up with vs what UL came up with, she thought it was overkill.Originally Posted by HoustonChronicle
Talk about an overblown panic move, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO ACCEPT.
Describe normal when the rule was ambiguous at best, conflicting at least, and post violation in clarity.Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
So let them decide. You/We have no idea what punishment ideas we planted in their head.Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
jmo
Couldn't we put ourselves on probation retroactively?Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
![]()
O.G. has been gone for two seasons and this past season has felt probationary.
/kidding.
//glad this is over
///looking for better times ahead.
According to what Scott Prather said this afternoon, there is no postseason ban, it's just a period in which - if we commit further violations - the NCAA can look into SERIOUSLY punishing us.talking Death Penalty-type stuff. Hey, who wants to be the first school to get a program taken away twice?Originally Posted by CajunCherokee
![]()
Big mistake. Had we gone into it with "your rule sucks, we don't think we deserve these penalties," we'd have been hit harder.Originally Posted by Turbine
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.Originally Posted by Sid
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.
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?Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
The committee was formed to discern the difference between a distance learning course and a correspondence course.Originally Posted by derf
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 isyou 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.
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.Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
Stop there. Using an ineligible player is hardly a minor infraction.Originally Posted by miamicajun32
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?
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.Originally Posted by BirdofParadise
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.Originally Posted by OLF82
Someone ought to make a sign and post that on Reinhardt Drive.Originally Posted by OLF82
Regardless of whether we should have been punished severely or not
This should NEVER happen again.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)