Cowherd going to bat for SU

[armory]

Says this is made to sound a lot worse than it is. Says SU self-reported it & this is just a school policy in an environment where you're not even required to have a policy. Specifically went into detail on how stories like this intentionally use inflammatory words like "drugs" "NCAA" "violation" to get a reaction out of people.

At least there are some cooler heads out there.

 

[longislandcuse]

Cowherd has been the man for us lately. He was great during the Fine thing and his statement today "SU self reported it and this is a school policy in an environment where you're not even required to have a policy" is a great point. People on here act like we violated NCAA rules when in fact we violated our own rules which im not even sure what the NCAA can or will have to say about it.

 

[armory]

He just made a great point (paraphrasing): "most schools don't have one, it's expensive to have one, and now you can get into trouble for violating your own? ... then why have a drug policy?"

This is like a huge advertisement to schools to abolish their existing drug policies.

 

[jekelish]

And then there are people like Dan Wetzel, who have headlines like: "Syracuse drug investigation shows the NCAA is yet again playing charades"

Do these idiots not realize there's NO NCAA POLICY on this stuff? This article is, in fairness, going as much after the NCAA as us, but it really shouldn't be. Because, again, there is NO NCAA POLICY on this.

 

[RoysRunts]

Another Reason to vote for Ron Paul.....

 

[longislandcuse]

So if we made a policy that players cant eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches 24 hours before a game, and 2 players violated that rule, but we still played them would that be a violation? The NCAA has no policies on pb&j sandwiches, just like there is no policy on drug testing so in all seriousness can we get punished for violating a team rule in which the NCAA has no such policy?

 

[NKR1978]

And then there are people like Dan Wetzel, who have headlines like: "Syracuse drug investigation shows the NCAA is yet again playing charades"

Do these idiots not realize there's NO NCAA POLICY on this stuff? This article is, in fairness, going as much after the NCAA as us, but it really shouldn't be. Because, again, there is NO NCAA POLICY on this.

The Wetzel column is actually pretty good. I don't agree with everything, but his general point I think is right on.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[jekelish]

I agree that the Wetzel column is not too bad, but he's missing the primary point here, which is that, again, there IS NO NCAA POLICY. He's attacking the NCAA for something they don't even police. Of course, if this is something we could conceivably get in trouble for, maybe they should, so that it's even across the board in the NCAA.

 

[longislandcuse]

I agree that the Wetzel column is not too bad, but he's missing the primary point here, which is that, again, there IS NO NCAA POLICY. He's attacking the NCAA for something they don't even police. Of course, if this is something we could conceivably get in trouble for, maybe they should, so that it's even across the board in the NCAA.

If I had to guess, we dont get in any trouble for this but we may have just triggered the NCAA into creating a new policy involving recreational drug testing.

 

[sabach]

He just made a great point (paraphrasing): "most schools don't have one, it's expensive to have one, and now you can get into trouble for violating your own? ... then why have a drug policy?"

This is like a huge advertisement to schools to abolish their existing drug policies.

What needs to be exposed are the schools who have no policy at all. What are those schools saying about drug use? If we can be looked at for violating a drug policy we voluntarily chose to have, all schools who don't have a policy should be looked at first. IMO that's the real story here.

 

[Knicks411]

So if we made a policy that players cant eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches 24 hours before a game, and 2 players violated that rule, but we still played them would that be a violation? The NCAA has no policies on pb&j sandwiches, just like there is no policy on drug testing so in all seriousness can we get punished for violating a team rule in which the NCAA has no such policy?

It's an interesting question. (Not the extreme position, but in general).

Yahoo reported that the NCAA can get involved if a school isn't following their own policy. They cited the Baylor situation. Then again, Baylor also was covering up a murder, so there is that.

 

[AirForceOrange]

The issue is not the use of recreational drugs. The issue is that SU set it's own policy and per that policy there should have been ramifications for violators, which didn't happen. For all the NCAA cares it could have been about banning PB&Js, however if SU did nothing when it was violated then there was/is a problem. NCAA has no drug policy until the tourney, the policy they do have is that if a school sets it's own policy for something, then that school must adhere to it's own policy, if it doesn't then the NCAA has oversight to do something. The fact this had to do with recreational drug use is nice fodder for the media, however it is inconsequential to the NCAA. All they care about is that a school set a policy, their student-athletes violated said policy, those studet-athletes should have been ineligible to play, but still played. The NCAA is not looking at this as a drug violation but as ineligbility issue.

 

[Knicks411]

He just made a great point (paraphrasing): "most schools don't have one, it's expensive to have one, and now you can get into trouble for violating your own? ... then why have a drug policy?"

This is like a huge advertisement to schools to abolish their existing drug policies.

And for the most part, I'm not sure they should have "drug policies" anyway. At least, in terms of testing for drug use. I'm sure every school has a policy that allows them to punish/suspend/expel kids who are caught with drugs, selling drugs, etc. But that is different to me than the school doing the actual policing itself and t esting the student/athletes.

 

[arbitragegls]

Coward the best...but folks this isnt going away any time soon. It is not a laughing matter and is not something that gets swept under the bus...we as Coward indicated...did this to ourselves. Damn...I want to enjoy the FF run and NC...didnt need this popping up.

 

[PhatOrange]

If I had to guess, we dont get in any trouble for this but we may have just triggered the NCAA into creating a new policy involving recreational drug testing.

Who gets stuck paying for it?

 

[reedny]

Another little detail ... the Yahoo article says the NCAA declined comment "Monday". But almost immediately, the NCAA issued a statement and confirmed that SU had self reported this "months ago". When asked to clarify "months ago", the NCAA backtracked and explained that it was "more than a year ago".

Just another reason why this article was published well ahead of the facts.

 

[longislandcuse]

If only we were just a little more corrupt. Those SEC football schools should be the model. No good deed goes unpunished. We didnt have to do this, we did, we didnt exactly follow it, now its an issue. Sucks, but I think the NCAA should be very careful how they handle this because this could cause teams to take the opposite approach we did. Why police something that can get you in trouble when you can just let it slide and suffer no consequences?

 

[longislandcuse]

Who gets stuck paying for it?

True, you're right. Seems to be too expensive to force on schools.

 

[AirForceOrange]

If I had to guess, we dont get in any trouble for this but we may have just triggered the NCAA into creating a new policy involving recreational drug testing.

I believe we will get in trouble for this...it's not a drug violation issue, but it is an elgibility issue...I just hope it doesn't affect 2003!!

 

[PhatOrange]

The issue is not the use of recreational drugs. The issue is that SU set it's own policy and per that policy there should have been ramifications for violators, which didn't happen.

This is what I'm most curious about. Who and When. Yahoo didn't name any names which is crazy to make allegations but not name names, however it's probably due n't due to privacy laws?

There were numerous suspensions of players back then. Both Wrights were suspended before, Devendorf, Paul Harris maybe? I'll be curious to know who supposedly failed drug tests but not suspended.

 

[longislandcuse]

I believe we will get in trouble for this...it's not a drug violation issue, but it is an elgibility issue...I just hope it doesn't affect 2003!!

I just dont see that. We violated team rules, not NCAA rules. Could the NCAA really force us to vacate wins or punish us due to our own failure to adhere to our own rules? I get your point on eligibility but most of the time eligibility issues deal with NCAA guidelines.

 

[PhatOrange]

If you're interested to see what other BCS school's drug policies are read this.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...aw-inconsistency-epitomizes-drug-policies/rss

 

[Knicks411]

I just dont see that. We violated team rules, not NCAA rules. Could the NCAA really force us to vacate wins or punish us due to our own failure to adhere to our own rules? I get your point on eligibility but most of the time eligibility issues deal with NCAA guidelines.

I could see some kind of punishment. Vacating wins seems like a stretch though.

 

[AirForceOrange]

I just dont see that. We violated team rules, not NCAA rules. Could the NCAA really force us to vacate wins or punish us due to our own failure to adhere to our own rules? I get your point on eligibility but most of the time eligibility issues deal with NCAA guidelines.

The NCAA has guidelines that says if a school sets it's own policies (even on issues the NCAA doesn't have policies), it must abide by them. If the school doesn't, then the NCAA does have oversight and can intervene. Kind of BS to me, but apparently it is an NCAA rules. Therefore per SU rules, if a player was supposed to be ineligible, but the school aloowed the player to play anayways, then there is a potential eligibility issue, which the NCAA can enforce/penalize. See Baylor. Although that had to do with a murder, it's inconsequential, what was important there was Baylor failed to adhere to it's own rules and got penalized for it. It can fall under lack of institutional control, which is a catchall the NCCA can and does use to penalize schools. Also, don't forget the media is all over this and the NCAA will face a lot of pressure to do something.

 

[longislandcuse]

So what kind of punishment would you see? A slap on the wrist probation, loss of a scholarship or two or something more serious?