Louisville / Kansas / LSU / Arizona / Auburn / NC State / Memphis / Other NCAA Violations

[310Pigpen]

Sort of unrelated to this topic but, will Boeheim ever get his wins back? Seems like if he was that it would’ve happened already.

 

[reedny]

There are going to be some very interesting story lines to follow in the coming months.
1. Louisville was already on probation when the Bowen offenses occurred. While cleaning house at the Athletic Department may mitigate matters a bit, I have a suspicion that they will incur a meaningful sanction. I imagine they will be missing the next NCAA tournament, whenever it happens. It is also worth noting that Coach Mack's contract has provisions for those sanctions. It is automatically extended for however long the punishment lasts, if I am not mistaken. It is probably safe to say some folks in Louisville saw this coming, if not Mack's agent.
2. Kansas admitted to all the charges levied against the football program, and, yet, denied all the charges brought against the basketball program. Read into that what you will.
3. For an indication of what is to come, it might be useful to follow the N C State proceedings concerning the payments allegedly made to Dennis Smith, Jr. That case is being handled through the independent resolution process created at the recommendation of the Rice Commission. There is no appeal to that decision. Given the confrontational manner which Kansas appears to be embracing, their case could be going that way, too.
4. Lastly, concerning UNC. These cases are very different from that of UNC, IMO. Clearly, what these schools have done is in violation of NCAA rules. While I think Carolina did gain a competitive advantage through the 'no show' classes, it also became clear that the NCAA had no regulations concerning an academic failing which was available to all students. I don't believe the NCAA ever anticipated that a reputable university would allow a staff member to create such a class, or that it would exis for so many years. Of course, what I found particularly repugnant was the way in which the UNC athletic department tried to defend itself, if not the amount of money they spent doing so.

Well put and good post. As to #'s 2/3, this is the first I've heard of referrals to the IRP (Rice Commission), so I'm very curious (read that "skeptical") as to whether: a) the process is fair; and b) justice (including penalties) will be meted out in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the violations.

As to the end of #4, the "available to all students" argument is risible. Yes, students in the general population could have taken Afam (gut) courses, or even "majored" in Afam. But what the NCAA should have focused on is the unique advantage it created for student athletes, who used it as a pretext to maintain academic eligibility. This should have vitiated their amateur status and voided all the games in which they participated. Ignoring these improprieties was bad enough. But ruling that such a widespread and long-lasting academic fraud did not violate the "extra benefits" rule created a stunning double standard (see Melo, Fab). To this day it defies logic and impugns the integrity of the NCAA compliance process.

And lastly, I find it especially detestable that an "ethics" professor in the phil. department was the AD's chief operative in the fake FB/BB eligibility scheme. It's the most egregious abuse of the amateur system I have ever seen and remains a black mark on the institution and the NCAA.

 

[73CAV]

......

As to the end of #4, the "available to all students" argument is risible. Yes, students in the general population could have taken Afam (gut) courses. But I doubt many "majored" in Afam or, more importantly, relied on the credits for athletics eligibility - the whole point of the NCAA compliance system. Why these freebies were not considered "extra benefits" remains a mystery?

And lastly, I find it especially detestable that an "ethics" professor in the phil. department was one of the operatives for UNC's scheme. The UNC escape is one of the most egregious abuses of the amateur system I have ever seen and remains a black mark on the institution and the NCAA.

Unless things have changed since I was in school, I imagine every fraternity and sorority on the UNC campus was well aware of the AFAM classes, and that their members were taking the class(es) to beef their GPAs, or to balance the course load of a particularly difficult semester. Those sorts of classes don't exist wthout folks knowing about them. What is really disturbing, if not disappointing, is that the administration was either oblivious to what was happening or chose to look the other way. As I said, I find the whole episode repugnant, but I also see it as an academic failing, for which UNC was sanctioned, as opposed to an athletic one. Regardless, the official response from UNC was seriously lacking.

 

[007]

There are going to be some very interesting story lines to follow in the coming months.
1. Louisville was already on probation when the Bowen offenses occurred. While cleaning house at the Athletic Department may mitigate matters a bit, I have a suspicion that they will incur a meaningful sanction. I imagine they will be missing the next NCAA tournament, whenever it happens. It is also worth noting that Coach Mack's contract has provisions for those sanctions. It is automatically extended for however long the punishment lasts, if I am not mistaken. It is probably safe to say some folks in Louisville saw this coming, if not Mack's agent.
2. Kansas admitted to all the charges levied against the football program, and, yet, denied all the charges brought against the basketball program. Read into that what you will.
3. For an indication of what is to come, it might be useful to follow the N C State proceedings concerning the payments allegedly made to Dennis Smith, Jr. That case is being handled through the independent resolution process created at the recommendation of the Rice Commission. There is no appeal to that decision. Given the confrontational manner which Kansas appears to be embracing, their case could be going that way, too.
4. Lastly, concerning UNC. These cases are very different from that of UNC, IMO. Clearly, what these schools have done is in violation of NCAA rules. While I think Carolina did gain a competitive advantage through the 'no show' classes, it also became clear that the NCAA had no regulations concerning an academic failing which was available to all students. I don't believe the NCAA ever anticipated that a reputable university would allow a staff member to create such a class, or that it would exis for so many years. Of course, what I found particularly repugnant was the way in which the UNC athletic department tried to defend itself, if not the amount of money they spent doing so.

You need to post more often, 73CAV

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Tend to agree... although I certainly understand why people are skeptical about the NCAA actually enforcing their rules.

Agree. Thought UNC was going to get the book thrown at them, but nothing at all happened. That's just crazy.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I'm on the same page. I think the NCAA will conveniently find a way to avoid a major crackdown. They're scared, especially now, that their time might be limited and the big boys will break away.

If there is punishment though, I really wish they would stop punishing current players who had nothing to do with it and focus on the coaches. Some lifetime bans for serious ongoing infractions, or at least loooong show cause penalties, might finally get their attention. If the worst they get is the Bruce Pearl treatment, the risk-reward calculus is strongly in favor of cheating.

Will be interesting to see what happens at Louisville. They just had a national title and F4 vacated two years ago on the stripper scandal. This time, they paid a kid though adidas $100,000 while on probation from that. Does the NCAA punish Pitino, Louisville or both? I know UL got rid of a lot of the people involved, but they need to face some penalties. Think they will get 1-2 years no NCAA tournament and Pitino 10 game suspension or worse.

 

[moqui]

Syracuse didn't need to do all that, because our infractions were all minor compared to this. You don't scorch the earth over administrivia caliber offenses.

And BTW, the athletic department DID clean house with the academic advisors.

the director of athletics initiating a conspiracy to commit academic fraud is not minor

 

[HOFCeluck]

Sort of unrelated to this topic but, will Boeheim ever get his wins back? Seems like if he was that it would’ve happened already.

No

 

[Cusefan0307]

the director of athletics initiating a conspiracy to commit academic fraud is not minor

Agreed, but fans forget most of the vacated wins were due to marijuana use and the YMCA paying our guys a few hundred dollars. Not to mention they somehow tied missing YMCA money to Syracuse players. The academic fraud was one player during one season.

 

[721Comstock]

Agreed, but fans forget most of the vacated wins were due to marijuana use and the YMCA paying our guys a few hundred dollars. Not to mention they somehow tied missing YMCA money to Syracuse players. The academic fraud was one player during one season.

What's funny is - most average (non-Syracuse) fans think that we're a dirty program who cheats incessantly, but when you ask them what exactly it was we got slammed for, almost nobody actually knows.
You cheated!! You got caught! You're bad! Boeheim's dirty! is about all most of them can muster.

If you actually laid out what our offenses were, especially in today's times, people would be dumbstruck at how piddling and minor they were:

Your ESL guy had too much help on a single paper.
You didn't enforce a drug policy that you were NOT even required to have.
Some guys got paid (pretty much minimum wage) to work at the Y, when it was supposed to be volunteering.

Bad Syracuse! Very bad! Very very bad!

 

[moqui]

Agreed, but fans forget most of the vacated wins were due to marijuana use and the YMCA paying our guys a few hundred dollars. Not to mention they somehow tied missing YMCA money to Syracuse players. The academic fraud was one player during one season.

but it wasn't just marijuana use
it was cynically announcing a detailed public anti-drug policy
and then even more cynically privately disregarding it when it became inconvenient
and then even more cynically claiming they had initiated a super-secret second policy which rescinded the public one

 

[310Pigpen]

No

Ok

 

[RF2044]

the director of athletics initiating a conspiracy to commit academic fraud is not minor

I don't disagree, although it wasn't "fraud" -- they were seeking "legal" options for ways that they could adjust his GPA upwards. It was a very bad look, however, and part of the reason that the NCAA came down hard on us.

But the other stuff -- the citations, etc. were fairly minor, and blown out of proportion by the NCAA -- especially compared to what happened at UNC.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Regarding SU's infractions, I'm sure people think that when someone is popped for an illegal lane change and get a $500 ticket, that that was all that they did.

Yes, the NCAA has double standards and they have a very broad range of punishments. And while I think It's a terrible system, I don't think for a second that Syracuse is some paragon of virtue in the collegiate sports money making machine. Take our lumps, move on, be smarter.

 

[Cusefan0307]

but it wasn't just marijuana use
it was cynically announcing a detailed public anti-drug policy
and then even more cynically privately disregarding it when it became inconvenient
and then even more cynically claiming they had initiated a super-secret second policy which rescinded the public one

Yeah. I don't care that much. Have at it. Was just pointing out where the vacated wins really came from.

 

[007]

You didn't enforce a drug policy that you were NOT even required to have.
Some guys got paid (pretty much minimum wage) to work at the Y, when it was supposed to be volunteering.

Lot's of posters point out that having the drug policy is not required, so why are schools punished. The problem is, if the University elects to have a drug policy, they must enforce it. My understanding is that Schools opt to have drug policies by choice because it benefits the school and the player. The NCAA does random drug testing before the NCAAT, bowls, etc. Players who test positive are immediately disqualified. Schools are attempting to stay ahead of the NCAA policy by getting to athletes ahead of time, educating, providing support, temporarily suspending, or whatever their policy states in order to avoid having a player disqualified for the post-season. They are trying to make sure their players are "clean" should they be randomly tested by the NCAA.

That's why schools get hammered for not enforcing their own drug policy.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Lot's of posters point out that having the drug policy is not required, so why are schools punished. The problem is, if the University elects to have a drug policy, they must enforce it. My understanding is that Schools opt to have drug policies by choice because it benefits the school and the player. The NCAA does random drug testing before the NCAAT, bowls, etc. Players who test positive are immediately disqualified. Schools are attempting to stay ahead of the NCAA policy by getting to athletes ahead of time, educating, providing support, temporarily suspending, or whatever their policy states in order to avoid having a player disqualified for the post-season. They are trying to make sure their players are "clean" should they be randomly tested by the NCAA.

That's why schools get hammered for not enforcing their own drug policy.

That’s what makes Frank Howard‘s positive drug test even more maddening. They had a system in place to make sure all players are drug free and a Frank still flunked the test.

 

[orangefog]

That’s what makes Frank Howard‘s positive drug test even more maddening. They had a system in place to make sure all players are drug free and a Frank still flunked the test.

Well, Frank was a special kind of guy.

 

[OttoMets]

Lot's of posters point out that having the drug policy is not required, so why are schools punished. The problem is, if the University elects to have a drug policy, they must enforce it. My understanding is that Schools opt to have drug policies by choice because it benefits the school and the player. The NCAA does random drug testing before the NCAAT, bowls, etc. Players who test positive are immediately disqualified. Schools are attempting to stay ahead of the NCAA policy by getting to athletes ahead of time, educating, providing support, temporarily suspending, or whatever their policy states in order to avoid having a player disqualified for the post-season. They are trying to make sure their players are "clean" should they be randomly tested by the NCAA.

That's why schools get hammered for not enforcing their own drug policy.

I've chimed in on this too many times, but yes. Your understanding is accurate.

Lots of college athletes, like lots of college students, like to smoke weed. They all know that they're through if they're caught by the NCAA during the tournament. So the schools like to get a perfectly legal and ethical competitive advantage by flagging these problems before they get to that stage. So they draft drug policies, test, and punish.

SU's basketball program chose to have its cake and eat it too.

 

[orangefog]

I've chimed in on this too many times, but yes. Your understanding is accurate.

Lots of college athletes, like lots of college students, like to smoke weed. They all know that they're through if they're caught by the NCAA during the tournament. So the schools like to get a perfectly legal and ethical competitive advantage by flagging these problems before they get to that stage. So they draft drug policies, test, and punish.

SU's basketball program chose to have its cake and eat it too.

Well, if they had the cake and they had the munchies...stuff happens.

 

[kirbivore]

Regarding SU's infractions, I'm sure people think that when someone is popped for an illegal lane change and get a $500 ticket, that that was all that they did.

Yes, the NCAA has double standards and they have a very broad range of punishments. And while I think It's a terrible system, I don't think for a second that Syracuse is some paragon of virtue in the collegiate sports money making machine. Take our lumps, move on, be smarter.

Cheat harder and don't cooperate. Should have played Fab and said F You to the NCAA

 

[capeorange]

Cheat harder and don't cooperate. Should have played Fab and said F You to the NCAA

That and not self reported.

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[Cuse1055]

Assume he’s referring to Arizona and LSU.