Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OttoMets, post: 3124450, member: 716"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?