Agree with sanctions against UL ???

[CajunKahouna]

_ "Four Little Doggies" called into Scott's show earlier today and, from what I could understand, he thinks "there is something there" that has not yet been cleared up." As has been the case in the past, Doggies is disappointed that UL did not get penalized more than they did.

As usual, Lil' Doggie is allowed to call into a local sports talk show and BLAST and CONDEMN the University of Louisiana athletic program. It is insulting and outrageous that he is allowed to do this on a talk show in the same town as the university. It is one thing to criticize from within (i.e. as a fan or supporter). It is quite different when a fan of LaState calls in week after week to insult all of us.

I can't recall him calling in when "Coach Pokey" was caught "poking" a few of her players. _

Why be surprised? Scott's no UL fan either!

[DaddyCajun]

_ I think someone called in after him and made some specific comparisons to Ohio State that prove there is some inconsistancey in the way sanctions are imposed between the top programs in the country and the little guys.

BTW, there is no NCAA invesitgation of Pokey or LSU. She violated LSU's code of ethics, it's not a NCAA infraction. _

Guru, in the paper and on the news, it was stated that LSU and other universities around the country do not have specific policy against Employees of the university and students/athletes having relationships together.

UL does have specific policy, not LSU! I do not think we have heard the last of this, atleast not at the suit level!

DaddyCajun

[Just1More]

_ Guru, in the paper and on the news, it was stated that LSU and other universities around the country do not have specific policy against Employees of the university and students/athletes having relationships together.

UL does have specific policy, not LSU! I do not think we have heard the last of this, atleast not at the suit level!

DaddyCajun _

I still say their was a free t-shirt in there somewhere. In my day, I've had a few girlfriends make off with one of my favorite shirts. The relationship Pokie had may not have been a policy issue, or an NCAA violation... but someone needs to look into whether the student made off with a t-shirt or a pair of socks that were not her own.

[cayenethepepper]

_ Guru, in the paper and on the news, it was stated that LSU and other universities around the country do not have specific policy against Employees of the university and students/athletes having relationships together.

UL does have specific policy, not LSU! I do not think we have heard the last of this, atleast not at the suit level!

DaddyCajun _

What gru said is absolutely correct!! LSU has this policy in place and always has relative to coaches and players interacting. The NCAA does not. Don't know where you heard that one from. Pokey is ______ing up a rope with this one.

[Just1More]

_ What gru said is absolutely correct!! LSU has this policy in place and always has relative to coaches and players interacting. The NCAA does not. Don't know where you heard that one from. Pokey is ______ing up a rope with this one. _

It is not about the school's policy on coach/player fraternization, or her resignation (which she did of her own volition). She wants the money remaining on her contract. That is what is in question. My personal belief is that she wants a settlement to go away quietly. I think they will assent to her settlement terms. ... but I still say there is a free t-shirt in here somewhere that no one wants to fess up to.

[BrockMeaux]

I'm not a fan of the scholarship losses, but overall, our punishments were par for the infractions. My problem comes when things aren't handled the same across the board (Ohio State). But for our punishments in a vacuum, I don't have a major problem with the sanctions, no.

[Just1More]

My agreement or disagreement plus 50 cents might buy a cup of coffee. Oops, I mean $5 at Starbucks.

I still do not know, exactly, what the admin knew of the NCAA rules on the use of transfer credits, whether UL sufficiently requested an explanation, whether they were given a sufficient explanation, whether they ignored advice for the obvious advantage, whether it was interpreted that they acted for personal gain and ignored "good judgement" and so on, and so forth. The NCAA does not have a set policy (and shouldn't) for infractions. They judge whether the institution used proper judgement, or ignored proper judgement, the limit to which they gained from the infraction, and then they apply penalties.

There is no doubt that rulings are not fair on the surface. And perhaps are not fair below the surface. Even this notion that we proposed upon ourselves too severe a penalty is ridiculous. How can this forum, or the Advertiser readership provide an educated response to the poll?

The result of the poll should have been 97% "don't know", with 3% thrown out for dangling chads. Oh... and I hate polls. They are stupid, meaningless, and only serve to create more confusion on the proposed subject. You can just about get any result you want, based on the question and limits of the answer selections. Whew... that felt good.

[Turbine]

There is no doubt that rulings are not fair on the surface. And perhaps are not fair below the surface. Even this notion that we proposed upon ourselves too severe a penalty is ridiculous. How can this forum, or the Advertiser readership provide an educated response to the poll?

The result of the poll should have been 97% "don't know", with 3% thrown out for dangling chads. Oh... and I hate polls. They are stupid, meaningless, and only serve to create more confusion on the proposed subject. You can just about get any result you want, based on the question and limits of the answer selections. Whew... that felt good.

Just1More you are right on as usual, don't know is the right answer.

I am one who railed against self imposed penalties because my curiosity has got the cart before the horse. My curiosity wants to know what the NCAA would dish out if uninfluenced. I would love to see something more than them just agreeing with the guilty conscience of university.

Part of what irks me about this whole thing is that some have said Melanie Richardson should have called the NCAA and asked them. Well I don't think so, she had read "one" of the conflicting rules and thought she knew. If you think you know, if you rad the rule there is no reason to continue checking on it. There was ZERO reason for her to call the NCAA.

What the NCAA had in place (before their clarification) is tantamount to this; 2 speed limit signs, on one it says "SPEED LIMIT 25" the other says MINIMUM SPEED 35.

Now if you come upon these signs and they are side by side you say whoa I better call the NCAA and get some clarification.

However if you are doing research (or did research in the past) and came upon just "1" of these rules (they are not on the same page) you have no reason to keep researching or ask questions. What you saw is your truth.

If you saw speed limit 25 rule first you know without doubt what the rule is, vice versa if you saw the minimum speed first.

I just feel that in the rush to throw Melanie Richardson under the bus the guilty/sentence us was a little hasty. But then again as you pointed out I really don’t know. And you were right.

[Just1More]

What the NCAA had in place (before their clarification) is tantamount to this; 2 speed limit signs, on one it says "SPEED LIMIT 25" the other says MINIMUM SPEED 35.

Now if you come upon these signs and they are side by side you say whoa I better call the NCAA and get some clarification.

However if you are doing research (or did research in the past) and came upon just "1" of these rules (they are not on the same page) you have no reason to keep researching or ask questions. What you saw is your truth.

If you saw speed limit 25 rule first you know without doubt what the rule is, vice versa if you saw the minimum speed first.

Totally agree with your conflicting speed limit analogy.

The NCAA is much like the IRS (lawmaker, judge, jury, executioner)... and right, wrong, or indifferent... that is a dangerous house to play cards in. The self imposed penalty play with the NCAA is an inexact science. If you have any arguments for believing your actions are within partial bounds, your penalty proposal smells of guilt admission, and therefore unplugs the appeal.

More than the justification debate of the severity of the penalties, I take issue with the time it takes to review, respond and act on the part of the NCAA. Further, the penalty almost always injures parties that are totally unaffiliated with the infraction.

I don't know if the punishment fit the crime, but I am glad to have the sentence over with. The moments leading up to the belt, for me, were always worse than the belt itself.