Griz supporters appeal sanctions

[PlayerRep]

Engstrom vs. NCAA = Obama vs. Putin

Now that's pretty funny. And add the DOJ and DOE. Let's just roll over and get it behind us. Never the mind the ongoing costs, ramifications, and bad precedent.

 

[get'em_griz]

Engstrom vs. NCAA = Obama vs. Putin

:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap:

:lol: Perfect!

 

[getgrizzy]

I think it's reasonable that UM discuss reducing the penalties, and believe they will. Other universities have done so effectively.

But one point the article makes is significant: the NCAA did not impose a playoff ban, which I understand from some close to the situation was very much on the table. Yes, the sanctions suck. But a playoff ban would have been worse. Sometimes it's best to take your medicine and go about your business.

A playoff ban was never on the table.

Yeah. It was. But frankly, I'd rather shit in my hand than argue with the likes of you.

Why don't you go argue whether UMass was kicked out of their conference. That's more your intelligence level.

Again, no, a playoff ban was never even suggested by the ncaa, and was not on the table. Of course, UM didn't want to have a playoff ban, and had that as a goal along.

i also believe a playoff ban was discussed in the staff meetings with haslam, engstrom, delaney, etc. they were going to go with a one-year playoff ban, but foolishly imo opted for a three-year four scholarship per year penalty. i'm not sure if they sent that in to the n.c.a.a. and the n.c.a.a. came with the scholarship reduction, but it would've been the thing to do. i see where coyle's dad has the same take on that as i do. we could've taken the playoff ban and this would all be over today. now we're looking at, and mr. coyle seems to agree, a three-year run at having to struggle to be competitive.

coyle said: “Losing four scholarships — down to 59, will have a major impact to the program’s ability to recruit at a level with other FCS schools, and specifically Montana student-athletes.”

we would be wise, and the appeal should've stated this, to take a one-year playoff ban right now in exchange for the last two years of the scholarship reduction and probation. as coyle says its tough to recruit in our current situation.

 

[PlayerRep]

A playoff ban was never on the table.

Yeah. It was. But frankly, I'd rather shit in my hand than argue with the likes of you.

Why don't you go argue whether UMass was kicked out of their conference. That's more your intelligence level.

Again, no, a playoff ban was never even suggested by the ncaa, and was not on the table. Of course, UM didn't want to have a playoff ban, and had that as a goal along.

i also believe a playoff ban was discussed in the staff meetings with haslam, engstrom, delaney, etc. they were going to go with a one-year playoff ban, but foolishly imo opted for a three-year four scholarship per year penalty. i'm not sure if they sent that in to the n.c.a.a. and the n.c.a.a. came with the scholarship reduction, but it would've been the thing to do. i see where coyle's dad has the same take on that as i do. we could've taken the playoff ban and this would all be over today. now we're looking at, and mr. coyle seems to agree, a three-year run at having to struggle to be competitive.

coyle said: “Losing four scholarships — down to 59, will have a major impact to the program’s ability to recruit at a level with other FCS schools, and specifically Montana student-athletes.”

we would be wise, and the appeal should've stated this, to take a one-year playoff ban right now in exchange for the last two years of the scholarship reduction and probation. as coyle says its tough to recruit in our current situation.

Coyle's dad is saying UM offered up too large of a scholarship reduction, and this should be reconsidered and reduced. He is not saying UM should have opted for a playoff ban, nor does he believe UM should have offered or accepted a playoff ban. Jeez, where does some of your stuff come from.

UM offered up the scholarship reductions. Big mistake.

 

[Raider]

Jes-s, could you two be any more fucking predictable?

 

[getgrizzy]

Yeah. It was. But frankly, I'd rather shit in my hand than argue with the likes of you.

Why don't you go argue whether UMass was kicked out of their conference. That's more your intelligence level.

Again, no, a playoff ban was never even suggested by the ncaa, and was not on the table. Of course, UM didn't want to have a playoff ban, and had that as a goal along.

i also believe a playoff ban was discussed in the staff meetings with haslam, engstrom, delaney, etc. they were going to go with a one-year playoff ban, but foolishly imo opted for a three-year four scholarship per year penalty. i'm not sure if they sent that in to the n.c.a.a. and the n.c.a.a. came with the scholarship reduction, but it would've been the thing to do. i see where coyle's dad has the same take on that as i do. we could've taken the playoff ban and this would all be over today. now we're looking at, and mr. coyle seems to agree, a three-year run at having to struggle to be competitive.

coyle said: “Losing four scholarships — down to 59, will have a major impact to the program’s ability to recruit at a level with other FCS schools, and specifically Montana student-athletes.”

we would be wise, and the appeal should've stated this, to take a one-year playoff ban right now in exchange for the last two years of the scholarship reduction and probation. as coyle says its tough to recruit in our current situation.

Coyle's dad is saying UM offered up too large of a scholarship reduction, and this should be reconsidered and reduced. He is not saying UM should have opted for a playoff ban, nor does he believe UM should have offered or accepted a playoff ban. Jeez, where does some of your stuff come from.

UM offered up the scholarship reductions. Big mistake.

you're twisting my words. as you can see i said the "appeal should've stated this". i realize coyle's dad doesn't want to take a playoff ban. but he should've. it's the only way the n.c.a.a. will consider this. he's over the top with some of his comments and that will be a big turnoff to the n.c.a.a. folks. death sentence for a parking violation? that will just put them on the defensive. we'll see. e.w.u. was able to appeal its playoff ban a couple years ago, so this might work, but i doubt it.

that appeal came from e.w.u., not a group of fans. e.w.u. also self-reported its infractions and the n.c.a.a. imposed the penalties. we did the exact opposite. e.w.u. then appealed the n.c.a.a.'s penalties and the penalties the n.c.a.a. imposed were deemed excessive. in our case someone turned us in and we imposed our own penalties and now an outside group of fans is appealing them in an abrasive manner.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

HAHAHA Engstrom...do something about this...challenge the NCAA?????? hahaha That would mean that little pussy would have to sit down, look someone in the eyes and DISAGREE with them....keep dreaming.

 

[Sportin' Life]

I am sorry, Brint, but with all due respect this is completely ridiculous on several levels.

Number one ... my memory is only slightly better than my willingness to do a couple of clicks to research something ... but didn't UM and the NCAA negotiate the punishment? I seem to recall UM's first offer of punishment being rejected by the NCAA, so that gave an idea as to what the minimum punishment would be for the Griz. Correct me if I am wrong about that (especially if in you're mind you think you represent players -- by all means if you are such a person do not remain silent about things).

Two ... there is no chance in hell that the NCAA will revisit a self-imposed punishment. What would be in it for them? Why on earth would they re-open the case and spend any more time and money on it?

Three ... knowing that, Haslam will not take it up. Seriously, his job is to appease donors and go through the motions, but in the end he is not going to put any resources behind this because I am sure off the top of his head he can think of 20 better uses for those resources. The best bet is to keep your head down and do the time.

Four ... one of the reasons for the sanctions was that the NCAA was getting the impression that the fans here were out of control, and felt that the rules of the NCAA didn't apply to them. How is this helping that impression?

 

[getgrizzy]

five... our most recent single year a.p.r. was something like 887, which is way below the minimum. our current average a.p.r. is just barely over the minimum.

 

[BWahlberg]

I am sorry, Brint, but with all due respect this is completely ridiculous on several levels.

Number one ... my memory is only slightly better than my willingness to do a couple of clicks to research something ... but didn't UM and the NCAA negotiate the punishment? I seem to recall UM's first offer of punishment being rejected by the NCAA, so that gave an idea as to what the minimum punishment would be for the Griz. Correct me if I am wrong about that (especially if in you're mind you think you represent players -- by all means if you are such a person do not remain silent about things).

Two ... there is no chance in hell that the NCAA will revisit a self-imposed punishment. What would be in it for them? Why on earth would they re-open the case and spend any more time and money on it?

Three ... knowing that, Haslam will not take it up. Seriously, his job is to appease donors and go through the motions, but in the end he is not going to put any resources behind this because I am sure off the top of his head he can think of 20 better uses for those resources. The best bet is to keep your head down and do the time.

Four ... one of the reasons for the sanctions was that the NCAA was getting the impression that the fans here were out of control, and felt that the rules of the NCAA didn't apply to them. How is this helping that impression?

Sportin'

Totally respect your opinion and I get where you're coming from. Our group talked about these points as we organized this.

1. I could be wrong but I do believe the whole "our first offer was rejected" was just rumor.

2. Yes the penalties were self-imposed. Yes the NCAA has never successfully allowed an appeal of self-imposed sanction. They have allowed an appeal/review to Boise who had self-imposed penalties. Additionally this country has a legal system and many other systems in place that are built upon the premise of being able to review, appeal, and get a 2nd chance. That's all we are asking here. Now that the UM is removed from a time of extreme duress to cooperate with the NCAA, can we have this looked at again to see if the penalty fits the violation.

3. Haslam is more supportive of this than you think. He's been presented this and appreciates our research and focus. He's helped start facilitation with this document and main hall. He's obviously in a position where it's tough to take a stance but he's done nothing to stop this or shut it down - which I really appreciate.

4. That's a valid point. Our argument is that when compared to other programs that were also deemed to be "out of control" our punishment far exceeds what others received.

 

[BWahlberg]

five... our most recent single year a.p.r. was something like 887, which is way below the minimum. our current average a.p.r. is just barely over the minimum.

Which has nothing to do with this and since our apr is over the minimum we're fine. So yeah.

 

[grizindabox]

I can not believe PR twisted someone's words....

 

[getgrizzy]

five... our most recent single year a.p.r. was something like 887, which is way below the minimum. our current average a.p.r. is just barely over the minimum.

Which has nothing to do with this and since our apr is over the minimum we're fine. So yeah.

haha, well if you're going to tell the n.c.a.a. that all the reports of our indiscretions are overblown, those a.p.r. numbers don't help. good luck with it brint. i hope it works and you're batting 1.000 with stuff like this, so you got that going for you.

serious question: don't you think a one-year post-season ban would've been better than the drawn out probation and scholarship reduction? i guess time will tell on that, but i'm interested in your take on that.

 

[grizindabox]

five... our most recent single year a.p.r. was something like 887, which is way below the minimum. our current average a.p.r. is just barely over the minimum.

Which has nothing to do with this and since our apr is over the minimum we're fine. So yeah.

haha, well if you're going to tell the n.c.a.a. that all the reports of our indiscretions are overblown, those a.p.r. numbers don't help. good luck with it brint. i hope it works and you're batting 1.000 with stuff like this, so you got that going for you.

serious question: don't you think a one-year post-season ban would've been better than the drawn out probation and scholarship reduction? i guess time will tell on that, but i'm interested in your take on that.

getgrizzy...without the post season UM athletics has nothing...it is the basis of everything

 

[getgrizzy]

five... our most recent single year a.p.r. was something like 887, which is way below the minimum. our current average a.p.r. is just barely over the minimum.

Which has nothing to do with this and since our apr is over the minimum we're fine. So yeah.

haha, well if you're going to tell the n.c.a.a. that all the reports of our indiscretions are overblown, those a.p.r. numbers don't help. good luck with it brint. i hope it works and you're batting 1.000 with stuff like this, so you got that going for you.

serious question: don't you think a one-year post-season ban would've been better than the drawn out probation and scholarship reduction? i guess time will tell on that, but i'm interested in your take on that.

getgrizzy...without the post season UM athletics has nothing...it is the basis of everything

i agree with that, but as i said time will tell. if we fail to make the playoffs once in the next three years then we've just prolonged the agony, because we will have missed the playoffs and had to endure being on probation. not to mention the long term effects, because it could take a couple years to rebound from being on probation and possibly from having some lackluster seasons.

 

[grizindabox]

Which has nothing to do with this and since our apr is over the minimum we're fine. So yeah.

haha, well if you're going to tell the n.c.a.a. that all the reports of our indiscretions are overblown, those a.p.r. numbers don't help. good luck with it brint. i hope it works and you're batting 1.000 with stuff like this, so you got that going for you.

serious question: don't you think a one-year post-season ban would've been better than the drawn out probation and scholarship reduction? i guess time will tell on that, but i'm interested in your take on that.

getgrizzy...without the post season UM athletics has nothing...it is the basis of everything

i agree with that, but as i said time will tell. if we fail to make the playoffs once in the next three years then we've just prolonged the agony, because we will have missed the playoffs and had to endure being on probation. not to mention the long term effects, because it could take a couple years to rebound from being on probation and possibly from having some lackluster seasons.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[garizzalies]

Hindsight is 20/20, but a one-year playoff ban would have been way better than that embarrassing costal carolina debacle.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Good for that group. I'll be interested to see what Haslam and RE do in response.

If Engstrom stopped suddenly, Haslam would break his nose.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The people involved in this proposal sound like gays

"We don't like the laws so we want to change them, and get special rights for ourselves"


I hate saying this, but I agree with...........Sportin.













I feel dirty

 

[griz4life]

The most telling thing about that article is Haslam's comment at the end where he says that he doesn't know how the University would go about appealing the sanctions. If he doesn't know by now, then it's probably safe to say UM has no interest in making the appeal.
Once you lay your cards on the table, you cannot pick them up. This isn't an Engstrom vs. the NCAA thing, it's a citizens of Montana vs. Engstrom thing. Engstrom put he scholarships on the table, not the NCAA.
The real question is why aren't people drawing up white papers on Engstrom's pending contract renewal? I think he's up for renewal in August. Pretty sure he gets a fat bonus for surviving his first contract if he's rehired this fall.