NYCorange
2nd String
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 873
- Like
- 2,210
I have two thoughts about this whole mess.
#1. Let's not be too quick to pile on Louisville. To outsiders looking in at the Syracuse situation, the headlines looked pretty bad. We knew that the NCAA hadn't come up with much of anything with substance, but the rest of the teams, jealous from our success, were too willing to laugh with glee and assume that we must be guilty. Rivalry hatred led to assumption of guilt; the NCAA derives its power and immunity from this. Can you imagine how the NCAA would look if Kentucky, Syracuse, and Duke fans all joined up to attack the NCAA over its inconsistent, unprofessional, and slipshod handling of all of these cases? But that doesn't happen because we're too happy to see a rival take one in the face. I'm not saying Louisville is innocent. I'm saying we don't really know what's happening on the inside and who is to blame; we shouldn't be too quick to take the NCAA's side. Ever.
#2. I really hate these self-imposed post-season ban. They're a a joke. They are all about timing recruiting and preserving the program at the expense of the current kids. If a post-season ban was announced before the start of a season, all of the recruits would leave, and future recruits, who assumed they would be joining a quality team would also leave. It's a domino effect and could potentially be the death of a program. The only way to escape it is by penalizing the current program so that next year's recruits don't leave. The school could easily choose to penalize none of the players by taking a ban next year, and letting all recruits and current players leave if they want. But they prioritize the program at the expense of the students. I guess that's the AD's job, but the NCAA let's schools (Syracuse included) get away with it. I don't know what the answer is--maybe getting rid of post-season bans altogether, or imposing them far less frequently, but it's just one more way that the system (NCAA and the schools) prioritize $$$ and winning over the actual players.
#1. Let's not be too quick to pile on Louisville. To outsiders looking in at the Syracuse situation, the headlines looked pretty bad. We knew that the NCAA hadn't come up with much of anything with substance, but the rest of the teams, jealous from our success, were too willing to laugh with glee and assume that we must be guilty. Rivalry hatred led to assumption of guilt; the NCAA derives its power and immunity from this. Can you imagine how the NCAA would look if Kentucky, Syracuse, and Duke fans all joined up to attack the NCAA over its inconsistent, unprofessional, and slipshod handling of all of these cases? But that doesn't happen because we're too happy to see a rival take one in the face. I'm not saying Louisville is innocent. I'm saying we don't really know what's happening on the inside and who is to blame; we shouldn't be too quick to take the NCAA's side. Ever.
#2. I really hate these self-imposed post-season ban. They're a a joke. They are all about timing recruiting and preserving the program at the expense of the current kids. If a post-season ban was announced before the start of a season, all of the recruits would leave, and future recruits, who assumed they would be joining a quality team would also leave. It's a domino effect and could potentially be the death of a program. The only way to escape it is by penalizing the current program so that next year's recruits don't leave. The school could easily choose to penalize none of the players by taking a ban next year, and letting all recruits and current players leave if they want. But they prioritize the program at the expense of the students. I guess that's the AD's job, but the NCAA let's schools (Syracuse included) get away with it. I don't know what the answer is--maybe getting rid of post-season bans altogether, or imposing them far less frequently, but it's just one more way that the system (NCAA and the schools) prioritize $$$ and winning over the actual players.