Cowherd going to bat for SU

[Knicks411]

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

Accepting that I am completely making this up off the top of my head, with no real past history to compare it to, I could see something where we lose a scholarship or two, sure.

 

[jekelish]

I think it depends on exactly what "recreational drugs" are involved, and as others have said, who it was that violated the policy. If it was something other than weed, we could be in more serious trouble. I think if it's weed, it'll largely be a slap on the wrist or maybe the loss of a scholarship (which, since we don't ever use all of our scholarships - or at least not lately - could qualify as a slap on the wrist).

 

[BostonOrange]

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.

You are totally right. I don't understand how 90% of the people on this board think SU didn't do anything wrong. WE HAD A POLICY. WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT. That is a huge issue. It makes no difference whether we were required to have a policy, whether it is an appropriate to have a drug policy, or whether anyone gives a rats arse about weed. Companies get in huge trouble for this shiit all the time. If you have policies\procedures you need to follow them. Not real complicated. PS - This is of course assuming that the content of the article is accurate.

 

[AirForceOrange]

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

I have no idea...hopefully not wins as it was school policy and not an NCAA policy. I would assume at least probation. My best guess would be probation and loss of scholarship(s). But we are talking about eligiblity and look what happened to Memphis in regards to Derrick Rose (kind of shady by the NCAA), so worse case would be vacating wins/seasons. But am only guessing from least, best and worse cases. Unfortunately with all the media attention SU has received in the last few months, they are definitely at a disadvantage.

 

[jekelish]

But here's the thing, it appears that, in the way the policy is written, there's some wiggle room and a bit of a grey area, in that the AD or whoever else can step in and intervene, meaning it's largely a judgment call on the part of the AD. DG reported it, apparently, but all indications are that this happened under Crouthamel's watch, so who knows whether or not Crouthamel looked at these violations on a case by case basis and used his judgment? It's written into the policy that the AD can intervene, so while he may have been a bit shady in his interventions, if that is what happened, it's within the written policy.

Just looking at all possible angles.

 

[Knicks411]

Which is why I think most of this will be hard for the NCAA to get concrete answers on. The sources could be players or even people lower on the AD chain who aren't aware of players being cleared, etc.

 

[orangecuse]

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

Nah...they'll just make these two dudes come in for a mandatory educational seminar.

 

[AirForceOrange]

You are totally right. I don't understand how 90% of the people on this board think SU didn't do anything wrong. WE HAD A POLICY. WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT. That is a huge issue. It makes no difference whether we were required to have a policy, whether it is an appropriate to have a drug policy, or whether anyone gives a rats arse about weed. Companies get in huge trouble for this shiit all the time. If you have policies\procedures you need to follow them. Not real complicated. PS - This is of course assuming that the content of the article is accurate.

This...I am in the military and we deal with policies/rules all the time. When our unit gets inspected we not only get inspected on our adherence to higher headquarters policies, but also our own. If we violate a higher headquarters policy we get dinged, but if we violate one of our own we get dinged as well. So, we try to limit creating our own policies to the minimum.

 

[dasher]

This will not be any kind of major hit. maybe a ship. Probably not.

 

[BostonOrange]

But here's the thing, it appears that, in the way the policy is written, there's some wiggle room and a bit of a grey area, in that the AD or whoever else can step in and intervene, meaning it's largely a judgment call on the part of the AD. DG reported it, apparently, but all indications are that this happened under Crouthamel's watch, so who knows whether or not Crouthamel looked at these violations on a case by case basis and used his judgment? It's written into the policy that the AD can intervene, so while he may have been a bit shady in his interventions, if that is what happened, it's within the written policy.

Just looking at all possible angles.

If true that is good news, and policies like this should always be written in this way.

 

[AirForceOrange]

Cowherd going to talk about SU again...in a few minutes...

 

[rrlbees]

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.

I like Cowherd in general but he's talking out of his arse here. I bet most do have a drug policy (not saying they follow it). He is also irresponsible if he thinks it is foolhardy to have a policy.

 

[rrlbees]

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

Well that article shows that it is likely everyone at least has a policy. Why did Cowherd say most don't?

 

[AZOrange]

Well that article shows that it is likely everyone at least has a policy. Why did Cowherd say most don't?

There are alot of schools not on that list...including us.

 

[rrlbees]

There are alot of schools not on that list...including us.

It says they couldn't get the info from private schools.

 

[br801]

You are totally right. I don't understand how 90% of the people on this board think SU didn't do anything wrong. WE HAD A POLICY. WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT. That is a huge issue. It makes no difference whether we were required to have a policy, whether it is an appropriate to have a drug policy, or whether anyone gives a rats arse about weed. Companies get in huge trouble for this shiit all the time. If you have policies\procedures you need to follow them. Not real complicated. PS - This is of course assuming that the content of the article is accurate.

How do you know "WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT"? From the Yahoo story? Personally, I'll need to see a little more substantive evidence before concluding that.

 

[BostonOrange]

How do you know "WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT"? From the Yahoo story? Personally, I'll need to see a little more substantive evidence before concluding that.

You are right. The yahoo article makes it sound like we consistently ignore it. Maybe the story is inaccurate, maybe there is more wiggle room in the policy (as another poster suggested) than yahoo suggests. My point, more accurately stated, is that 'if' we had a policy and consistently ignored it that is a big deal.

 

[Victory Lap]

Interesting question: if BYU has somewhat medieval policies regarding sex, can they be punished for not enforcing those policies?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.787789,-84.389082

 

[chlywtr]

Interesting question: if BYU has somewhat medieval policies regarding sex, can they be punished for not enforcing those policies?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.787789,-84.389082

didn't they suspend a kid just last year for having consensual sex with his girlfriend?

 

[NKR1978]

You are totally right. I don't understand how 90% of the people on this board think SU didn't do anything wrong. WE HAD A POLICY. WE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED IT. That is a huge issue. It makes no difference whether we were required to have a policy, whether it is an appropriate to have a drug policy, or whether anyone gives a rats arse about weed. Companies get in huge trouble for this shiit all the time. If you have policies\procedures you need to follow them. Not real complicated. PS - This is of course assuming that the content of the article is accurate.

What exactly did SU do or not do? You are making absolute statements without any proof or even knowing what was done.

The self reported violations can simply be that a player was tested, that player played a game, the test then came back positive after the game. So the player played a game when he potentially should have been suspended or cleared by a drug counsellor. Hence a potential violation that SU self reported.

We have no clue what the.violations are, that's why most of us aren't freaking out

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[Victory Lap]

The AP headline is "Syracuse Self-Reports Possible Drug Policy Violations." Why isn't that the headline everywhere? That's a rhetorical question.

 

[jekelish]

didn't they suspend a kid just last year for having consensual sex with his girlfriend?

Yes they did, but I think he's asking about if they knowingly ignored that policy to keep the kid playing.

And I don't see any way the NCAA would care about any institutional policy other than drugs, frankly. We can speculate about whether this boils down to "if they have a policy about X and they don't follow it, can they be punished" all we want, but the fact is the NCAA doesn't care who's screwing who or who's eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and who isn't. Those things aren't in any NCAA manual. Drugs, while not the subject of a standard national policy set by the NCAA, has its own manual, which has been linked on here this morning. They set guidelines that they'd LIKE to see schools follow, which includes coming up with a written policy on drug and alcohol use.

 

[longislandcuse]

didn't they suspend a kid just last year for having consensual sex with his girlfriend?

But what if Jimmer Fredette did the same thing and they chose to overlook it when he should have been suspended? Would the NCAA intervene based on eligibility issues?

 

[Victory Lap]

But what if Jimmer Fredette did the same thing and they chose to overlook it when he should have been suspended? Would the NCAA intervene based on eligibility issues?

Exactly. And my guess is that most athletes are humans, so I would assume violations of that policy are common.

 

[DNABB5]

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

Goin to do that right now as a matter or fact