Somebody in Syracuse who is this Chris McManus clown?

[Alsacs]

The former AD is still employed at SU.
As mentioned elsewhere, that - in and of itself - is a scandal.

He has a contract. The school is fulfilling the terms of that contract. That is no scandal. Having the guy teach and maintain some dignity and is not a problem. Dr. Gross was not a bad AD and while these NCAA sanctions were a problem they forced the school if they wanted relief from the NCAA to make a move and the new chancellor made that move.

I see no problem with Dr. Gross remaining on the school payroll until his contract expires.

 

[orange79]

I think what we have learned in this thread is that there is a huge difference between an opinion, and an informed opinion.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It's not ALL over a paper; that's just the area of academic improprieties that JB is getting hit hardest for with the 9 games. And they are not telling coaches that they need to start talking with professors; they are telling coaches that they need to be explicitly clear to the people in their programs that they can never go around the rules to make players eligible.

Look, I realize it's not a popular opinion. But all things considered, they lost a postseason which they weren't going to anyway, three schollies per year in a sport where no one plays more than nine (and lots of freshman contribute), and a bunch of documented wins that will always count to us no matter what. The scholarships sting a little, but it's supposed to. They broke some rules.

What about the fact that the players already served suspensions? Isn't that double jeopardy to punish SU again for the same thing?

 

[Cusefan0307]

FWIW Brent agreed with Chris on his show as well last night.

 

[reedny]

What did Syracuse really tangibly lose from the penalties? Certainly not an NCAA birth last year, they weren't making the tourney either way. Is missing the NIT really a loss?

Yes they have fewer scholarships, but what has that actually cost them? Kevin Huerter is the only guy who probably would have come here that we didn't end up with.

I suppose we lost Boeheim coaching 9 games next year, but considering Hopkins is next in line anyway I'm actually excited to see him get a chance to coach.

The NCAA has limited enforcement abilities. Syracuse went years putting very little effort into NCAA compliance, and all it cost them was Kevin Huerter. If they put any effort at all into NCAA compliance they would never have got hit at all. The punishment was not excessive. The problem is that other schools do much worse (but are better at compliance) and get little to no penalties.

Disagree, at least as to the vacated wins. The penalties against JB were unprecedented for a coach who didn't, himself, commit the violations (it was a general failure to monitor). Half a season suspension and over 100 games vacated, for a coach who is (was) all-time number 2 is absolutely overkill. Under that standard, Kyle Flood would be in prison for 3 years; Roy Williams would be getting life w/out parole and Pay-Pal would be sitting in the electric chair.

 

[kaivman]

What about the fact that the players already served suspensions? Isn't that double jeopardy to punish SU again for the same thing?

Infractions committed by the student-athletes and the school's failure to adequately police them are separate acts committed by separate entities. As such, this cannot be double jeopardy.

As for assessing the overall punishment, I don't think sanctions for others schools should be relevant. Look at the at the motives behind this particular case. The NCAA isn't sending people to jail here and the punishment does not have to "fit the crime" by way of comparison to prior sanctions. The NCAA is as much a regulatory authority as it is anything else. It is clear that the past sanctions it has laid out are not enough to deter students and staff from skirting the rules, be it at Cuse or anywhere else. The NCAA needs to have force in order for its rules to have effect. It is exercising force here. I wouldn't deny that Cuse is getting a severe lashing here, but I would expect future rule-breakers to also receive harsher punishment. Not because Cuse did, but rather for the NCAA to flex its muscles a create a effective deterrent. I suppose we have to wait and see, but I think the NCAA's motive justifies this type of punishment. It is sending a message, and, regardless of whether you agree with them, I think you have to frame the punishment in that light and not take it personally. It is unfortunate that Cuse is the test case, but if you don't break the rules, then you don't have to worry about the punishment.

To be sure, I don't fully agree with punishment but I think this is the best way to understand it. I think in the past, the NCAA handed out sanctions to each school with a focus on inducing each particular school to clean up their program in certain identifiable ways. In other words, the punishment did "fit the crime" because its motive was singular in that it wanted to teach that school a lesson, rather than to signal wholesale that it should be taken seriously. I think the NCAA's focus in this instance is to send a warning to everyone, and Cuse is the first unlucky recipient. I think the NCAA also took a look at the self-imposed ban last year and said "no, we will not be gamed like this." Now rule-breakers cannot more or less calculate the value of breaking a rule because the NCAA took what was once a somewhat determinable constant and turned it into a variable.

 

[General20]

It's hard to play it out but I think we could've made the tourney without the ban. I just think we lost steam at that point.

We certainly lost huerter and I'm sure the roster struggle isn't lost on recruits. I'm also not sure it wasn't a factor in the transfers. Maybe not. But I think it did cost us Huerter in year 1.

Again I struggle with the notion that the penalties were not excessive juxtaposed with "other schools do much worse...and get little to no penalties".

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics. I agree with you that Syracuse was punished more harshly than peer schools with worse infractions. I just think that the correct way to fix it is not to punish Syracuse less, but to punish those other schools more . . . and frankly to catch more of the obvious rule breakers.

The NCAA's punishments - including Syracuse's punishment - have no teeth, we will be competing for a national championship next year with zero lasting negative effects.

The other half of this that nobody has brought up yet (but I have a feeling we are all on the same page) is that the NCAA's penalties hurt the students and the fans but fail to punish the actual cheaters. If you really want to stop cheating you fine the guilty schools money . . . and lots of it.

 

[General20]

Disagree, at least as to the vacated wins. The penalties against JB were unprecedented for a coach who didn't, himself, commit the violations (it was a general failure to monitor). Half a season suspension and over 100 games vacated, for a coach who is (was) all-time number 2 is absolutely punitive. If you used the same standard, Kyle Flood would be in prison for 3 year; Roy Williams would be life w/out parole and Pay-Pal would be sitting in the electric chair.

I guess I don't see vacated wins as a real penalty. The way I see it, if Syracuse is a top ten team competing for a national championship next year (and we will be!) how bad can those penalties have been?

UConn was punished and won a national championship the next year, ditto Ohio St. in football. NCAA "punishments" never really do anything.

 

[reedny]

I guess I don't see vacated wins as a real penalty. The way I see it, if Syracuse is a top ten team competing for a national championship next year (and we will be!) how bad can those penalties have been?

UConn was punished and won a national championship the next year, ditto Ohio St. in football. NCAA "punishments" never really do anything.

If we were just talking about scholarships, I could probably live with some consequences. The YMCA problem went on right under the AD's nose. That said, imposing 3 per year, for 4 years, plus the recruiting limitations, was excessive -- we weren't even involved in recruiting violations. I could see maybe 2 per year for 3 years (i.e., appropriately moderate consequences). As it was, the scholarship sanctions were serious enough to create somewhat of a personnel crisis. Some players transferred that might not have had to if we had the limit (13)(I realize there were other factors). Also, the sanctions caused a lot of uncertainty, which sullied the image of the program (temporarily). This caused, or contributed to, the loss of Thomas Bryant (again, other factors were present). And all of this for what? Paying kids to ref games at the Y? Fab's paper? It's disproportionate, compared to other institutions.

But the slap in the face to JB is what really took the penalties over the top. Suspension for half a season is unnecessarily harsh and humiliating for a general monitoring failure. And the vacated wins, which will permanently affect JB's legacy ... are just beyond the pale (Penn State level). This is the area where we differ. Yes, SU' will survive, as Penn State did. But the stains the NCAA put on JB's record ... were so far beyond the violations the only basis I can surmise is some personal animus by the committee. And coming from the POS COI chairman -- now commissioner of the SEC -- made the sanctions sting even more. Busting SU for a kid's paper (who spoke Portuguese), while quietly tolerating the academic charade going on at UK, is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Alsacs]

FWIW Brent agreed with Chris on his show as well last night.

Again I laugh at the notion Axe is a homer. He seems like a douche noozle who is happy being the "Jim Rome" of Syracuse and big fish in the little pond. I don't listen to radio in Syracuse as whenever I am there for football games its the weekend.
These fools play contrarian to get reactions and piss people off to call in and interested. I am glad I don't have to listen to these guys if I was on there show using logic would destroy their narratives. Sadly only 1 to 2% of the audience actually calls in and those that call are usually not SWC75 but idiots who don't know the facts.

 

[MSOrange]

Sadly only 1 to 2% of the audience actually calls in and those that call are usually not SWC75 but idiots who don't know the facts.

That sums up why I don't enjoy sports talk radio nearly as much as I used to - and I've always been told I had a 'radio voice" and actually wanted to pursue it at one point. I only listen to two regularly here in Kansas City - Soren Petro and Danny Parkins - ironically both Syracuse grads

 

[Conrad13]

Yes they have fewer scholarships, but what has that actually cost them? Kevin Huerter is the only guy who probably would have come here that we didn't end up with..

I'd bet that Patterson and Johnson would still be playing for SU if it weren't for the sanctions.

 

[RF2044]

That sums up why I don't enjoy sports talk radio nearly as much as I used to - and I've always been told I had a 'radio voice" and actually wanted to pursue it at one point. I only listen to two regularly here in Kansas City - Soren Petro and Danny Parkins - ironically both Syracuse grads

Actually, what they told you was that you have a FACE for radio...

 

[MSOrange]

Actually, what they told you was that you have a FACE for radio...

HAHA I know I have that too!

 

[AZOrange]

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics. I agree with you that Syracuse was punished more harshly than peer schools with worse infractions. I just think that the correct way to fix it is not to punish Syracuse less, but to punish those other schools more . . . and frankly to catch more of the obvious rule breakers.

The NCAA's punishments - including Syracuse's punishment - have no teeth, we will be competing for a national championship next year with zero lasting negative effects.

The other half of this that nobody has brought up yet (but I have a feeling we are all on the same page) is that the NCAA's penalties hurt the students and the fans but fail to punish the actual cheaters. If you really want to stop cheating you fine the guilty schools money . . . and lots of it.

Totally agree.

 

[DoubleDee]

Sadly only 1 to 2% of the audience actually calls in and those that call are usually not SWC75 but idiots who don't know the facts.

Three words...

Pat

From

Syracuse

 

[SWC75]

Again I laugh at the notion Axe is a homer. He seems like a douche noozle who is happy being the "Jim Rome" of Syracuse and big fish in the little pond. I don't listen to radio in Syracuse as whenever I am there for football games its the weekend.
These fools play contrarian to get reactions and piss people off to call in and interested. I am glad I don't have to listen to these guys if I was on there show using logic would destroy their narratives. Sadly only 1 to 2% of the audience actually calls in and those that call are usually not SWC75 but idiots who don't know the facts.

You don't listen to the radio in Syracuse. That may be why you compare Brent Axe to Jim Rome. :crazy:

 

[Alsacs]

Three words...

Pat

From

Syracuse

Is that guy a low information caller that makes these idiots look smart?

 

[SWC75]

Is that guy a low information caller that makes these idiots look smart?

Pat's terrific and really knows his stuff.

 

[Alsacs]

You don't listen to the radio in Syracuse. That may be why you compare Brent Axe to Jim Rome. :crazy:

I based it off his articles. Rome acts likes a blowhard and is comfortable with his hottakes. Axe seems like that type of writer I have no clue what he is like on the radio but if he reads this board and agrees with McManus take he is either trolling SU fans or really thinks the NCAA is fair.

 

[SWC75]

I based it off his articles. Rome acts likes a blowhard and is comfortable with his hottakes. Axe seems like that type of writer I have no clue what he is like on the radio but if he reads this board and agrees with McManus take he is either trolling SU fans or really thinks the NCAA is fair.

I started listening to Brent because he was like the friendly bartender you talk sports with. His new show is less relaxed because it's only an hour but he's still a good listen. He's not a blow hard or a contrarian and he's nothing like Jim Rome.

 

[RF2044]

Infractions committed by the student-athletes and the school's failure to adequately police them are separate acts committed by separate entities. As such, this cannot be double jeopardy.

As for assessing the overall punishment, I don't think sanctions for others schools should be relevant. Look at the at the motives behind this particular case. The NCAA isn't sending people to jail here and the punishment does not have to "fit the crime" by way of comparison to prior sanctions. The NCAA is as much a regulatory authority as it is anything else. It is clear that the past sanctions it has laid out are not enough to deter students and staff from skirting the rules, be it at Cuse or anywhere else. The NCAA needs to have force in order for its rules to have effect. It is exercising force here. I wouldn't deny that Cuse is getting a severe lashing here, but I would expect future rule-breakers to also receive harsher punishment. Not because Cuse did, but rather for the NCAA to flex its muscles a create a effective deterrent. I suppose we have to wait and see, but I think the NCAA's motive justifies this type of punishment. It is sending a message, and, regardless of whether you agree with them, I think you have to frame the punishment in that light and not take it personally. It is unfortunate that Cuse is the test case, but if you don't break the rules, then you don't have to worry about the punishment.

To be sure, I don't fully agree with punishment but I think this is the best way to understand it. I think in the past, the NCAA handed out sanctions to each school with a focus on inducing each particular school to clean up their program in certain identifiable ways. In other words, the punishment did "fit the crime" because its motive was singular in that it wanted to teach that school a lesson, rather than to signal wholesale that it should be taken seriously. I think the NCAA's focus in this instance is to send a warning to everyone, and Cuse is the first unlucky recipient. I think the NCAA also took a look at the self-imposed ban last year and said "no, we will not be gamed like this." Now rule-breakers cannot more or less calculate the value of breaking a rule because the NCAA took what was once a somewhat determinable constant and turned it into a variable.

Kudos for making a well reasoned first post, and welcome to the board.

But there is virtually nothing in your analysis that I agree with. A governing body making an example out of someone with penalties that don't fit the infractions is the definition of excessive punishment, especially when the penalties are capricious, arbitrary, and out of whack with precedent.

Sorry, I am not willing to accept that we need to get hammered because it is acceptable for the NCAA to make an example out of us, when their modus operandi is to look the other way as other teams cheat with impunity. And that's why the University has legal recourse, if the NCAA doesn't rule favorably on the appeal. Justifiably so -- the NCAA makes Roger Goodell seem like an impartial arbitrator.

 

[two3zone]

I'd bet that Patterson and Johnson would still be playing for SU if it weren't for the sanctions.

Maybe Patterson but I doubt BJ. BJ is young, skilled and still playing for a team with a solid reputation and will play. He was over recruited here and probably wouldn't have played. He made the right decisions, sanctions or no sanctions.

 

[longtimefan]

Infractions committed by the student-athletes and the school's failure to adequately police them are separate acts committed by separate entities. As such, this cannot be double jeopardy.

As for assessing the overall punishment, I don't think sanctions for others schools should be relevant. Look at the at the motives behind this particular case. The NCAA isn't sending people to jail here and the punishment does not have to "fit the crime" by way of comparison to prior sanctions. The NCAA is as much a regulatory authority as it is anything else. It is clear that the past sanctions it has laid out are not enough to deter students and staff from skirting the rules, be it at Cuse or anywhere else. The NCAA needs to have force in order for its rules to have effect. It is exercising force here. I wouldn't deny that Cuse is getting a severe lashing here, but I would expect future rule-breakers to also receive harsher punishment. Not because Cuse did, but rather for the NCAA to flex its muscles a create a effective deterrent. I suppose we have to wait and see, but I think the NCAA's motive justifies this type of punishment. It is sending a message, and, regardless of whether you agree with them, I think you have to frame the punishment in that light and not take it personally. It is unfortunate that Cuse is the test case, but if you don't break the rules, then you don't have to worry about the punishment.

To be sure, I don't fully agree with punishment but I think this is the best way to understand it. I think in the past, the NCAA handed out sanctions to each school with a focus on inducing each particular school to clean up their program in certain identifiable ways. In other words, the punishment did "fit the crime" because its motive was singular in that it wanted to teach that school a lesson, rather than to signal wholesale that it should be taken seriously. I think the NCAA's focus in this instance is to send a warning to everyone, and Cuse is the first unlucky recipient. I think the NCAA also took a look at the self-imposed ban last year and said "no, we will not be gamed like this." Now rule-breakers cannot more or less calculate the value of breaking a rule because the NCAA took what was once a somewhat determinable constant and turned it into a variable.

Re: The NCAA saying "no, will not be gamed like this"
We'll see how they react to UNC's gaming of the system--e.g., pushing back the timetable so that it doesn't interfere with this year's team.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Maybe Patterson but I doubt BJ. BJ is young, skilled and still playing for a team with a solid reputation and will play. He was over recruited here and probably wouldn't have played. He made the right decisions, sanctions or no sanctions.

Opposite of my opinion. Patterson Will never be a good high D-1 player. BJ, with some strength, could be a good piece of a winning ACC team.