Would you take this deal?

[pfister1]

There is zero chance of this happening. 3 scholies annually over 4 years = a team of walk ons.

I expect 1-2 scholies total over the next 1-2 years.

So are we all going to be surprised when we learn what the NCAA has on us?? I just don't feel like I've heard anything that would justify the loss of 1-2 scholarships when self reported and self policed.

- The drug policy thing seems like absolute bs to me given that it was an internal policy that was not required by the NCAA - kind of like not enforcing a game night curfew.
- Any Fab academic hijinx seem like they were already offset by his suspension for the remainder of his sophmore season.
- The Bernie thing is the Bernie thing and I doubt the NCAA would touch it with a 10 foot pole given that no one has been able to legally substantiate any of it and there are still civil lawsuits pending over it.

 

[Macky44]

You have clearly never seen Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla. smh

Funny you should say that. Its next in my que for Netflix.

 

[tee1222]

Greatest movie ever made. That is actually Morgan Freeman's son for those who didn't know.

It says it (Morgan's son) in my post. In fine print.

 

[tbonezone]

i'd start this argument by saying that being a "laissez -faire " hands off coach in this day and age is a gross dereliction of duty. i'd want daily urine samples.

 

[CaptainJ]

i'd start this argument by saying that being a "laissez -faire " hands off coach in this day and age is a gross dereliction of duty. i'd want daily urine samples.

I thought hands on coaches were the type that started bigger scandals...like Penn State.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I thought hands on coaches were the type that started bigger scandals...like Penn State.

 

[shermstheman]

I'm thinking the NCAA will give the Cuse 2 extra schollies per year and make the 3 highest rated recruits commit to Syracuse each year. I could live with that penalty.

 

[rrlbees]

The drug policy thing seems like absolute bs to me given that it was an internal policy that was not required by the NCAA - kind of like not enforcing a game night curfew.

I think what people miss is that while a school doesn't have to have an internal drug testing program, that if you do, you have to follow it and student athletes are subject to penalties. If you don't follow your policy, the team is subject to NCAA penalties or sanctions.

Most schools have their own policy because it's like doing practice tests for the real test. If a player tests positive during the year by the NCAA or even worse, during the post season, the penalties are worse.

BTW, the NCAA during the year typically tests for performance enhancing type drugs and not something like pot. They do test for that during the NCAA's or a bowl game (randomly selected players, not all). So your internal policy needs to do test for that to make the point sooner than later. But when the school tests for pot and other street drugs, there has to be penalties in place for the athlete and they must be adhered to otherwise the NCAA can punish the school.

I assume we may not have followed our own policies, probably the punishment part, at some point over the past 10 years. I know what timeframe I would guess.

 

[007]

I think what people miss is that while a school doesn't have to have an internal drug testing program, that if you do, you have to follow it and student athletes are subject to penalties. If you don't follow your policy, the team is subject to NCAA penalties or sanctions.

Most schools have their own policy because it's like doing practice tests for the real test. If a player tests positive during the year by the NCAA or even worse, during the post season, the penalties are worse.

BTW, the NCAA during the year typically tests for performance enhancing type drugs and not something like pot. They do test for that during the NCAA's or a bowl game (randomly selected players, not all). So your internal policy needs to do test for that to make the point sooner than later. But when the school tests for pot and other street drugs, there has to be penalties in place for the athlete and they must be adhered to otherwise the NCAA can punish the school.

I assume we may not have followed our own policies, probably the punishment part, at some point over the past 10 years. I know what timeframe I would guess.

I think this is exactly right.

People that think this part is "BS" are completely off base. If you choose to have a drug policy, you must enforce it unilaterally. It's more than that however. I suspect that the NCAA is targeting the failure to enforce the drug policy to show a longstanding PATTERN of willful violations and impermissible benefits in the program. IF true, that would be a more serious offense.

 

[moqui]

I think what people miss is that while a school doesn't have to have an internal drug testing program, that if you do, you have to follow it and student athletes are subject to penalties. If you don't follow your policy, the team is subject to NCAA penalties or sanctions.

Most schools have their own policy because it's like doing practice tests for the real test. If a player tests positive during the year by the NCAA or even worse, during the post season, the penalties are worse.

BTW, the NCAA during the year typically tests for performance enhancing type drugs and not something like pot. They do test for that during the NCAA's or a bowl game (randomly selected players, not all). So your internal policy needs to do test for that to make the point sooner than later. But when the school tests for pot and other street drugs, there has to be penalties in place for the athlete and they must be adhered to otherwise the NCAA can punish the school.

I assume we may not have followed our own policies, probably the punishment part, at some point over the past 10 years. I know what timeframe I would guess.

plus which, if even half the stories some of us have heard over the years are true, then any drug policy the AD had in place was a complete farce.

seems to me it was a paper policy, put into place for PR purposes. probably a lot of schools have the same thing. Then along game Sandusky and Davis, and the paper gets exposed.

 

[Oakland]

I don't think the see no evil, hear no evil applies in modern NCAA revenue sports. They have all sorts of academic advisors, tutors, and compliance officers. Roy is just playing the plausible deniably card which means he doesn't give a crap about the academic performance of his players. Roy's only values are winning, money, and glory.

Of course, UNC is a big, big proponent of speak no evil. Their 3 or 4 internal investigations clearly showed that.

I'm sure most people think it's a cop-out but I actually thought Roy Williams made a good point about his ability to police these things. He basically said he can't start asking around about course requirements and assignments because the faculty would go crazy. And it's true - if the coach starts sniffing around asking what his players are expected to do in their courses, it looks like he's pressuring the faculty for special treatment. if it turned out to be a legit course, would anybody believe he was asking because he was afraid it wasn't hard enough?

Same goes for Boeheim - I don't know whether he takes a "see no evil" approach, but coaches really are limited in how they can interact with the academic side of the house. if someone brings them information they should act on it, but i don't think we can assume people would be okay with them investigating coursework, tutoring, etc. i think these situations have more to do with the strange and uneasy relationship between big-time sports and higher education (which most of us try to ignore because we love college sports) than they do with specific coaches or schools.