• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

ncaa findings

gotgriz

Member
DONOR
Montana failed to monitor football program

The University of Montana and its former head football coach failed to monitor its football program, according to findings by the Division I Committee on Infractions. University boosters provided extra benefits to football players, including meals, free legal representation and bail bond payments, a small loan, clothing, lodging, transportation and laundry services. Additionally, the football team exceeded coaching limits and two former student-athletes competed while ineligible. As a result of this activity, the university and the former head coach failed to monitor.

Penalties in this case, many of which were self-imposed, include a three-year probation period, scholarship reductions, a vacation of wins in which the ineligible student-athletes participated and reduction in the number of undergraduate student assistant positions. The former head coach, among other consequences, will be suspended from coaching duties at his current university for the first game of the 2013 season and face multiple recruiting restrictions during the upcoming fall season.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties collectively submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. The NCAA enforcement staff, university and involved individuals must agree to the facts of the case in order for this process to be utilized instead of having a formal hearing.

When two student-athletes were arrested in 2011, a university booster provided bail. Another booster then provided the student-athletes with free legal representation. According to NCAA rules, a law firm may provide a student-athlete free legal assistance if it has a history of providing pro bono services to other individuals, including the general student body at the school, and the student-athlete initiated contact with the law firm. Additionally, two student-athletes competed in regular and postseason games while they were ineligible, due to the provision of bail and free legal assistance.

Following the release of the two student-athletes from jail, the former head coach learned that a booster provided bail for the two student-athletes. The former head coach did not inform the compliance office or any other administrator of the booster activity. Senior athletics department officials, including the compliance director and director of athletics, were also aware that the booster was providing legal assistance to the student-athletes.

Three married couples, who were university boosters, provided meals for at least eight student-athletes on more than 100 occasions from 2004 through 2012. Additionally, one of the couples provided a student-athlete with free storage space for two months, transportation, apparel and a small cash loan. An assistant director of athletics also committed a secondary violation by providing a student-athlete with meals, snacks, lodging and laundry services..

During the 2011-12 academic year, the football program employed a student assistant that performed activities allowed only for coaches.

The former head coach failed to monitor the football program by not reporting the booster activity surrounding the arrest of the two student-athletes, not monitoring the relationships between boosters and student-athletes and allowing a student assistant to engage in coaching activity. The university failed to monitor the football program when it did not supervise the booster activity surrounding the provision of legal services to student-athletes.

Penalties and measures for the former head coach at his current university include:
•A suspension from coaching the first game of the 2013 season. The report further explains details of the suspension.
•A restriction from off-campus evaluations during the fall 2013 evaluation period.
•A restriction from off-campus recruiting during the first three weeks of the fall 2013 contact period.
•Required attendance at a 2014 NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in 2014.

The university penalties, including those imposed by the university, include:
•Public reprimand and censure.
•Three years of probation from July 26, 2013 through July 25, 2016 (proposed by the university and adopted by the committee).
•A limit of 59 equivalency scholarships per year for the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years, from the allowable 63 (imposed by the university).
•Vacation of all wins in which two student-athletes completed while ineligible during the 2011 regular season and 2011 NCAA Division I FCS championship. The public report further details the requirements of the vacation (imposed by the university).
•A $3,000 donation to local charities (imposed by the university).
•A reduction of the number of student assistant positions by two during either the 2013-14 or 2014-15 academic year (imposed by the university).
•An external review of the university’s athletics compliance program (imposed by the university).

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case include Britton Banowsky, chair of the Committee on Infractions and commissioner of Conference USA; John Black, attorney; Greg Christopher, athletics director at Xavier University; Christopher L. Griffin, coordinator of appeals and attorney; Brian Halloran, attorney; Roscoe Howard Jr., attorney; Eleanor Myers, faculty athletics representative and law professor at Temple University; and Greg Sankey executive associate commissioner and chief operating officer for the Southeastern Conference.
 
wow. so i assume those two ineligible players are both now in the NFL? one for the colts? one for the rams?

thats tough! but very glad they arent punishing the current players with a postseason ban....as we have seen before. good programs with history can overcome a small speed bump in the grand scheme of it all! a big sky championship and a national championship will help clear everyones mind :) go griz!!
 
So, for those in the know, how will the scholarship loss affect us? Obviously it won't help but how has it affected other schools?
 
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:
 
•A suspension from coaching the first game of the 2013 season. The report further explains details of the suspension.
What exactly does this mean?
 
dupuyer griz said:
So, for those in the know, how will the scholarship loss affect us? Obviously it won't help but how has it affected other schools?


it will affect UM in that they won't have as much money to spread around. In FCS you can give partial scholarships, so UM could get creative and give prime recruiting targets full rides, and use the rest to give to a number of players. But the pool of money they draw from will be smaller
 
NLGrizFan said:
•A suspension from coaching the first game of the 2013 season. The report further explains details of the suspension.
What exactly does this mean?
Pflu can't coach in Weber's first game.
 
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:


100 meals over 8 years isn't crazy, those could be post game bbqs or having players over for dinner at any point throughout the year. I don't think that should be deemed illegal for any school
 
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:

The big deal is that a coach knew about it and did not report it as a violation as well as other booster/player interactions. that is the issue
 
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:
:roll: It's this kind of thinking that leads to the slippery slope of NCAA infractions, that has led to these kinds of sanctions. I blame the boosters as much as the players. Pat Williams was not far off in calling some players "thugs." There are some "thugs" among boosters as well, and this kind of nonsense must stop. It's been a cancer in this program even before Pflu; all he was doing was staying within the poisonous culture. But, of course, he was the one who paid for it.

It's good for the program. Let's move on and get back to winning, which can be done despite these setbacks. Go Grizzzz!
 
billings_poke said:
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:

The big deal is that a coach knew about it and did not report it as a violation as well as other booster/player interactions. that is the issue

The regs say "occasional meal" Past practice was once a month during the season. The "rule" is so vague that you can't regulate behavior, but I know that if you asked you were told once a month during the season. That wouldn't equal 100, but it's not a clear violation either in my mind.
 
Grizzoola said:
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:
:roll: It's this kind of thinking that leads to the slippery slope of NCAA infractions, that has led to these kinds of sanctions. I blame the boosters as much as the players. Pat Williams was not far off in calling some players "thugs." There are some "thugs" among boosters as well, and this kind of nonsense must stop. It's been a cancer in this program even before Pflu; all he was doing was staying within the poisonous culture. But, of course, he was the one who paid for it.

It's good for the program. Let's move on and get back to winning, which can be done despite these setbacks. Go Grizzzz!

Disagree. If you had a kid and he was playing ball in a far away state, you are saying you would let them stay in jail for a weekend rather than have a parent pay right away that was there? If it's repaid in a week, what was the "benefit"? A week's interest on $500 bucks? Come on Mr. Perfect. :?
 
Grizzoola said:
GrizPony said:
This is almost exactly what I heard and posted earlier for punishment. 100 meals is crazy and the assistant AD had to be clueless to do that. The "booster" on the bond was another player's mom. Not really a big deal in my opinion. I would want someone to bond my kid out asap and repay them as soon as I could. I think she is a mom first, booster second in that scenario. We lose the 6 games with Tru (Cats win again I guess). :roll:
:roll: It's this kind of thinking that leads to the slippery slope of NCAA infractions, that has led to these kinds of sanctions. I blame the boosters as much as the players. Pat Williams was not far off in calling some players "thugs." There are some "thugs" among boosters as well, and this kind of nonsense must stop. It's been a cancer in this program even before Pflu; all he was doing was staying within the poisonous culture. But, of course, he was the one who paid for it.

It's good for the program. Let's move on and get back to winning, which can be done despite these setbacks. Go Grizzzz!

I agree with you but these violations are still relatively minor in the "big picture" of college athletics. None of this is even close to USC, Oregon and Ohio State type infractions IMO. Montana was a dominant FCS program for a long time. It would be
difficult for anybody to believe that they were "squeaky" clean.
 
Forfeiting and vacating are two different things. The games are still losses for the teams the Griz beat, for the Griz, its as if the games were not played, though the individual statistics will still count.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top