Griz supporters appeal sanctions

[CV Griz Fan]

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.

This whole situation was a cluster f..k of the highest order. Playoff ban or not the Griz are paying a steep price and the program has suffered terribly. Having said that, Bandlands' statement is the truest I've seen on E-Griz concerning this whole matter.

 

[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.

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.

The APR thing seems like a stand-alone issue IMO. If the program goes below then they're subject to whatever penalties the NCAA determines. Can't really argue that. Our request for a reduction isn't really focused on that, however you make a point that if the APR does come out poorly again it might really hurt our argument.

As for the serious question, a post season ban. No way. Look at the data. The schools that got the post-season bans were usually those that had committed mass cover ups in regards to cheating in school, hiding a lot of major violations, making money through impermissible means. I just don't see that with the UM.

I think it's easy to go back and say that last years season probably would've "felt" a lot better if it ended with the win at the Brawl, however I don't think a post-season ban fits the violation.

Just my opinion - I think a 2 year loss for the next 3 years seems to be a better "fit". But that's just me.

 

[PlayerRep]

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

gg's words weren't twisted. This is what he said: "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."

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

The appeal/reconsideration has nothing to do with the ncaa's "law" or wanting to change them. The appeal/reconsideration would be based on the fact that UM's sanctions are much more harsh than the sanctions received by other programs for worse infractions. Take a look at Southeast Louisiana's, which were announced after the UM/ncaa report. 106 ineligible athletes over a 6-yr period. Lost 3 schollies for 2 years in football. "During the 2007 football season, Southeastern allowed 18 players to compete while ineligible, and 17 the season before." UM had 2 ineligible athletes for part of 1 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9110291/southeastern-louisiana-finds-137-ineligible-athletes-competed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10114656/southeastern-louisiana-penalized-ncaa-eligibility-issues" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

















I feel dirty

 

[GrizFan2011]

As one of the three authors of the white paper I'd be happy to share them here.

One thing to point out, the goal IS NOT to appeal the ruling because our group was not interested in opening up and re-hashing every little detail. Also appeals have never been successful on self-imposed penalties.

What the goal of this white paper is intended for is to have the UM request a REDUCTION in the scholarship penalties against the football program. Nothing more.

I heard that Janet Stevens Donahue was the third besides Chris Coyle. Is that true?

 

[GrizFan2011]

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.

Great question!!!! I would like to see this group put something together for the Regents to review in time for consideration of Engstrom's contract renewal!!!

 

[maroonandsilver]

So, if I got arrested for robbing a bank, and I and my attorney negotiate a plea agreement, and after a few days in jail I decide it's not so much fun, I can ask for a do-over?

 

[Raider]

At lunch I ate a sandwich that did not agree with me, and I have the worst gas. Possible diarrhea to follow.

Thoughts?

 

[PlayerRep]

So, if I got arrested for robbing a bank, and I and my attorney negotiate a plea agreement, and after a few days in jail I decide it's not so much fun, I can ask for a do-over?

Yes, in various circumstances. It's done fairly often. The reconsideration can be based on new evidence/information, on changes in sentencing guidelines, and other reasons. Also, an appeal can be done on the basis of ineffective counsel. This is a frequent basis for appeal, and it's surprising how often that the appeal is granted.

 

[getgrizzy]

As one of the three authors of the white paper I'd be happy to share them here.

One thing to point out, the goal IS NOT to appeal the ruling because our group was not interested in opening up and re-hashing every little detail. Also appeals have never been successful on self-imposed penalties.

What the goal of this white paper is intended for is to have the UM request a REDUCTION in the scholarship penalties against the football program. Nothing more.

I heard that Janet Stevens Donahue was the third besides Chris Coyle. Is that true?

actually it was jordan graham.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/montana-bride-who-shoved-husband-off-cliff-cannot-change-plea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[getgrizzy]

So, if I got arrested for robbing a bank, and I and my attorney negotiate a plea agreement, and after a few days in jail I decide it's not so much fun, I can ask for a do-over?

you can, but it rarely works. if it works once every hundred times its asked i would be surprised. this is exactly what the bride that pled guilty to pushing her husband off the cliff tried to do.

 

[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?

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.

Ah, it was a rumor. At least the memory was based on something I have actually encountered ... that is better than usual.

Sorry about being so late getting back to you. And cheers for taking it as the good natured criticism that I thought it was. I guess I am just pessimistic about these sorts of things, but after slamming the project as not going anywhere, I got to thinking about what exactly was the harm in asking? I couldn't think of anything really, so I guess if it gets you through the off season that is fine with me. I still don't think it will change anything, but hell, you might surprise me.

 

[GrizPony]

As one of the three authors of the white paper I'd be happy to share them here.

One thing to point out, the goal IS NOT to appeal the ruling because our group was not interested in opening up and re-hashing every little detail. Also appeals have never been successful on self-imposed penalties.

What the goal of this white paper is intended for is to have the UM request a REDUCTION in the scholarship penalties against the football program. Nothing more.

I heard that Janet Stevens Donahue was the third besides Chris Coyle. Is that true?

Maybe...

 

[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.

The APR thing seems like a stand-alone issue IMO. If the program goes below then they're subject to whatever penalties the NCAA determines. Can't really argue that. Our request for a reduction isn't really focused on that, however you make a point that if the APR does come out poorly again it might really hurt our argument.

As for the serious question, a post season ban. No way. Look at the data. The schools that got the post-season bans were usually those that had committed mass cover ups in regards to cheating in school, hiding a lot of major violations, making money through impermissible means. I just don't see that with the UM.

I think it's easy to go back and say that last years season probably would've "felt" a lot better if it ended with the win at the Brawl, however I don't think a post-season ban fits the violation.

Just my opinion - I think a 2 year loss for the next 3 years seems to be a better "fit". But that's just me.

right, but who cares what fits the violation. right now a one-year playoff ban seems minor compared to what we're up against. don't you wish this was all over with today? it could be if we'd just taken a one-year ban and been done with it. this reduction/probation didn't even start until what? september 2013, so it's going to last until september 2016, when it possibly could've been all over in december 2013. it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion today if that were the case. i don't think many people thought we had a team that was capable of making a deep playoff run anyway. we ended up squeaking out a bunch of wins and our defense was seriously flawed.

 

[OlPonyQB]

Are supporters saying our side negotiated poorly? Or, is NCAA obligated to suggest guidelines in sanctions based on the findings?

 

[BWahlberg]

Are supporters saying our side negotiated poorly? Or, is NCAA obligated to suggest guidelines in sanctions based on the findings?

Negotiated poorly.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

The APR thing seems like a stand-alone issue IMO. If the program goes below then they're subject to whatever penalties the NCAA determines. Can't really argue that. Our request for a reduction isn't really focused on that, however you make a point that if the APR does come out poorly again it might really hurt our argument.

As for the serious question, a post season ban. No way. Look at the data. The schools that got the post-season bans were usually those that had committed mass cover ups in regards to cheating in school, hiding a lot of major violations, making money through impermissible means. I just don't see that with the UM.

I think it's easy to go back and say that last years season probably would've "felt" a lot better if it ended with the win at the Brawl, however I don't think a post-season ban fits the violation.

Just my opinion - I think a 2 year loss for the next 3 years seems to be a better "fit". But that's just me.

right, but who cares what fits the violation. right now a one-year playoff ban seems minor compared to what we're up against. don't you wish this was all over with today? it could be if we'd just taken a one-year ban and been done with it. this reduction/probation didn't even start until what? september 2013, so it's going to last until september 2016, when it possibly could've been all over in december 2013. it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion today if that were the case. i don't think many people thought we had a team that was capable of making a deep playoff run anyway. we ended up squeaking out a bunch of wins and our defense was seriously flawed.

The coaches and the athletic department, as well as most strong supporters of the program, strongly prefer the loss of scholarships to a playoff ban. Jeez, as usual, you are completely out of step on this.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

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.

The APR thing seems like a stand-alone issue IMO. If the program goes below then they're subject to whatever penalties the NCAA determines. Can't really argue that. Our request for a reduction isn't really focused on that, however you make a point that if the APR does come out poorly again it might really hurt our argument.

As for the serious question, a post season ban. No way. Look at the data. The schools that got the post-season bans were usually those that had committed mass cover ups in regards to cheating in school, hiding a lot of major violations, making money through impermissible means. I just don't see that with the UM.

I think it's easy to go back and say that last years season probably would've "felt" a lot better if it ended with the win at the Brawl, however I don't think a post-season ban fits the violation.

Just my opinion - I think a 2 year loss for the next 3 years seems to be a better "fit". But that's just me.

right, but who cares what fits the violation. right now a one-year playoff ban seems minor compared to what we're up against. don't you wish this was all over with today? it could be if we'd just taken a one-year ban and been done with it. this reduction/probation didn't even start until what? september 2013, so it's going to last until september 2016, when it possibly could've been all over in december 2013. it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion today if that were the case. i don't think many people thought we had a team that was capable of making a deep playoff run anyway. we ended up squeaking out a bunch of wins and our defense was seriously flawed.

Hindsight really is 20/20. Yes the defense turned out to be flawed but with the euphoria of JJ
coming back many in Griz nation thought that a duplicate of 2011's playoff run was possible.
If somebody offered up a one year playoff ban in 2013, they'd have been burned at the stake.
Nobody knew that last year's Griz team was as flawed as it was. At least not when the NCAA penalties were being discussed.You must look at the decisions that were made in context. Yes the one year playoff ban now looks like the better decision but it is somewhat irrelevant when you look at the whole picture IMO.

 

[BWahlberg]

New article is up on Missoulian.com glad to see it's still "under consideration" from the UM.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_a0d51b58-b611-11e3-88bb-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Janet Donahue]

As one of the three authors of the white paper I'd be happy to share them here.

One thing to point out, the goal IS NOT to appeal the ruling because our group was not interested in opening up and re-hashing every little detail. Also appeals have never been successful on self-imposed penalties.

What the goal of this white paper is intended for is to have the UM request a REDUCTION in the scholarship penalties against the football program. Nothing more.

I heard that Janet Stevens Donahue was the third besides Chris Coyle. Is that true?

Maybe...

Yes, I did.