Ga Tech banned from 2019-20 postseason | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Ga Tech banned from 2019-20 postseason

lol “callous negligence” totally dead solid facts.
You’re an odd bird
all he had to do was call their damn parents, but he just didn't want to and went ahead and played them anyway
there are a hundred ways to describe it and callous negligence is as accurate as any of them. it's why he's never getting those wins back, btw
 
i'm going to keep repeating this as long people insist on pretending it didn't happen:
the syracuse director of athletics organized a conspiracy to commit academic fraud
the head basketball coach, through callous negligence, allowed ineligible players to take the court in over 100 games
Just my opinion, but I thinks it up to the AD to decide who is eligible.
UNC's whole campus was rigged up to commit academic fraud.
Not say SU wasn't wrong, but c'mon.
 
i'm going to keep repeating this as long people insist on pretending it didn't happen:
the syracuse director of athletics organized a conspiracy to commit academic fraud
the head basketball coach, through callous negligence, allowed ineligible players to take the court in over 100 games

You are absolutely right, and I would argue this makes Syracuse the cleanest program in the P6.
 
i'm going to keep repeating this as long people insist on pretending it didn't happen:
the syracuse director of athletics organized a conspiracy to commit academic fraud
the head basketball coach, through callous negligence, allowed ineligible players to take the court in over 100 games
It's not illegal to have a compliance meeting, nor to discuss a particular player.

It is, however, a violation to ...
  1. Have a basketball staffer add a footnote to a players term paper
  2. Choose not to call a players' parent on the second violation of the Athletic Dept.'s (voluntary) drug testing program
  3. Have 5 football players split/share $8,000 for a summer job at the YMCA (equivalent of $2.74/day during the duration of the investigation--see below).
  4. Have a basketball player receive one singular ride to or from a camp or community appearance
That was the extent of it, after an EIGHT YEAR investigation, which we prompted by self-reporting.

As an alum, I came away proud of our athletic department's efforts to "play by the rules" or really really close to it.
 
It's not illegal to have a compliance meeting, nor to discuss a particular player.

It is, however, a violation to ...
  1. Have a basketball staffer add a footnote to a players term paper
  2. Choose not to call a players' parent on the second violation of the Athletic Dept.'s (voluntary) drug testing program
  3. Have 5 football players split/share $8,000 for a summer job at the YMCA (equivalent of $2.74/day during the duration of the investigation--see below).
  4. Have a basketball player receive one singular ride to or from a camp or community appearance
That was the extent of it, after an EIGHT YEAR investigation, which we prompted by self-reporting.

As an alum, I came away proud of our athletic department's efforts to "play by the rules" or really really close to it.
that's not what the meeting was

and your point 2 is not simply "choosing not to call," it's willfully & intentionally using players you know to be ineligible.
 
Ineligible because of a voluntary drug program. Many other schools chose not to have a drug program,so players there would have been eligible. Shouldn’t NCAA eligibility be standard for all schools?
 
We committed the equivalent of 3 misdemeanors that should have been a fine and community service at most and were treated habitual felony violators.
The NCAA is a joke. We didn't fight back like Penn State did and got them to back down, or North Carolina which got off scotch free because what the hell.

If you tangle with the NCAA you treat it like a night fight and fight them. Their power comes from accepting what they say is law even if its just inconsistent as heck. We could have fought the process as a violation of due process but SU took the punishment, reassigned Dr. Gross and basically asked for lenient sentence. When that got us over-punished. No way should we have lost 12 scholarships for that crap. Freaking Georgia Tech had Jarren Jack take a kid to a strip club and other stupid stuff they are only losing 4 scholarships.
 
all he had to do was call their damn parents, but he just didn't want to and went ahead and played them anyway
there are a hundred ways to describe it and callous negligence is as accurate as any of them. it's why he's never getting those wins back, btw

Gross told him NOT to bother calling parents because Gross was rewriting a new drug test policy.

And it wasn't just JB. Every single Syracuse coach was told to ignore the "old" policy and follow the "new" one.
 
Gross told him NOT to bother calling parents because Gross was rewriting a new drug test policy.

And it wasn't just JB. Every single Syracuse coach was told to ignore the "old" policy and follow the "new" one.
ah, the mythical "secret policy" defense, the physical evidence for which is non existent. not even a simple memo after 3 years.

other schools have gotten off more lightly than they should have, but that doesn't change the opinion of the vast majority of non-orange ncaa basketball watchers that syracuse was punished appropriately for some very serious infractions.
 
all he had to do was call their damn parents, but he just didn't want to and went ahead and played them anyway
there are a hundred ways to describe it and callous negligence is as accurate as any of them. it's why he's never getting those wins back, btw

I think he'll get the wins back, and I think he should.

But the make-believe that 99% of syracusefan.com's posters engage in with regard to SUAD and the basketball program's 2012 malfeasance is surprising and sad.
 
Syracuse definitely deserved a penalty for the Fab Melo fiasco, but the drug policy and payments from the YMCA from an employee that may or may not have had ties to the AD really grind my gears.

This is exactly the type of stuff that Louisville got just a small slap for and how Kansas is going to fight the NCAA saying Adidas has no ties to the University.
 
...but the drug policy and payments from the YMCA from an employee that may or may not have had ties to the AD really grind my gears.
...

I get ya, this was penny-ante stuff. But at the same time, talk about easily-avoidable and objectively violative actions. That's what amazes and irritates me.

Drug policy is classic Boeheim. So dumb, so easy to abide by, and a situation where Boeheim and Crouthamel and compliance should have just gotten onto the same page from the beginning. I get the sense that SU could've just used common sense, never had ineligible players, ended up with the same won-loss records, and avoided the NCAA investigation right here.

YMCA is innocuous in terms of the details, but it's easy to see why the NCAA wants to set a bright-line prohibition here. Paying kids who are simultaneously earning academic credit is fraudulent and even taking academic credit out of the equation, this is an area in which factory schools could (and do) funnel a ton of money to players. And everyone in the athletic department (including the players, regardless of what they might have said after the fact) knew it was wrong.

In addition to Boeheim's past, I believe this is why the NCAA levied a punishment that seems too harsh. The scope of lack of institutional control is jarring, even though the severity (and, arguably, any competitive advantage) of the drug and YMCA violations is pretty minor. Reading the report, you get the sense that fundamental NCAA rules didn't mean anything to people in the athletic department and basketball program.

Having done some compliance work, I can say with certainty that this was really simple stuff that everyone knows about. SU operated without any regard for rules and the NCAA seemed eager to punish that mentality even more than the actual violations.
 
You are absolutely right, and I would argue this makes Syracuse the cleanest program in the P6.
Great point. I don't disagree that (per OttoMetts) there were some troubling mistakes given how simple the compliance choices were. The YMCA arrangement was obviously improperly managed - which is baffling because p-t employment is not an NCAA violation if it is organized and supervised correctly. As far as the Old/New drug policies, clearly there were compliance and communications issues - including reporting of DT results directly to the AD instead of the HC (which was probably a better practice but violated SU's written policy), etc. Conspiracy? I'm not going there based on what I know. Either way, this is all a Koolaid stand compared to the 18 year fraud at UNC and the semi-pro/academic farces being perpetrated at some SEC and B1G schools.
 
Last edited:
I get ya, this was penny-ante stuff. But at the same time, talk about easily-avoidable and objectively violative actions. That's what amazes and irritates me.

Drug policy is classic Boeheim. So dumb, so easy to abide by, and a situation where Boeheim and Crouthamel and compliance should have just gotten onto the same page from the beginning. I get the sense that SU could've just used common sense, never had ineligible players, ended up with the same won-loss records, and avoided the NCAA investigation right here.

YMCA is innocuous in terms of the details, but it's easy to see why the NCAA wants to set a bright-line prohibition here. Paying kids who are simultaneously earning academic credit is fraudulent and even taking academic credit out of the equation, this is an area in which factory schools could (and do) funnel a ton of money to players. And everyone in the athletic department (including the players, regardless of what they might have said after the fact) knew it was wrong.

In addition to Boeheim's past, I believe this is why the NCAA levied a punishment that seems too harsh. The scope of lack of institutional control is jarring, even though the severity (and, arguably, any competitive advantage) of the drug and YMCA violations is pretty minor. Reading the report, you get the sense that fundamental NCAA rules didn't mean anything to people in the athletic department and basketball program.

Having done some compliance work, I can say with certainty that this was really simple stuff that everyone knows about. SU operated without any regard for rules and the NCAA seemed eager to punish that mentality even more than the actual violations.

We were over punished. No doubt about that. But we were over punished because Boeheim had already been punished years prior and seemingly didn’t learn a damn thing. It’s not fair, but neither is life. The whole thing was avoidable. Would’ve helped to have had a much better AD the helm as well.
 
that's not what the meeting was

and your point 2 is not simply "choosing not to call," it's willfully & intentionally using players you know to be ineligible.

There was nothing wrong with having the meeting. I.E., what avenues could legitimately be pursued to raise the player's GPA, and get him above water for eligibility.

But the OPTICS of SU having that meeting were a lot worse than the meeting itself.
 
or North Carolina which got off scotch free because what the hell.

F317B0AD-9550-476A-935B-50C4DAC4F2F2.gif
 
ah, the mythical "secret policy" defense, the physical evidence for which is non existent. not even a simple memo after 3 years.

other schools have gotten off more lightly than they should have, but that doesn't change the opinion of the vast majority of non-orange ncaa basketball watchers that syracuse was punished appropriately for some very serious infractions.
I'M GOING TO DIE ON THIS HILL AND NONE OF YOU WILL EVER STOP ME
 
I was just disappointed we weren’t cheating more.

Footnotes? YMCA?

I want bags. Lots of bags.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,127
Messages
4,681,575
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,812
Total visitors
1,902


Top Bottom