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

ncaa findings

gah-riz said:
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.
not for the 2 ineligible players though, the stats gained in those game for those players are purged.

Also you have to remove the BSC co-champ for those years form all banners, stationary ect...
 
maroonandsilver said:
While we may never know the actual reasons Engstrom fired the coach and AD, these are reasons enuf!

I disagree. The coach probably didn't even know that the it was a violation for a parent to put up $340, at the request of a player's family, to bail someone out and get paid back a week later. None of this was thought to be serious prior to the firing of the coach/AD.

The university counsel did a review of the hiring of legal counsel for the taser guys and that subject generally, and didn't conclude that it was a problem. There's a written report/analysis on that subject from several months after the taser incident.

The AD is hardly mentioned, except that he was the AD. Even if all of this had been serious at the time of the firings, which it wasn't, what would be the grounds for firing?

If a claim is ever brought against the university for a firing, we'll find out the reasons, and who knew what and when. I suspect that emails and depositions would show that the firings had little or nothing to do with the ncaa stuff.
 
For all of us wondering why Pflugrad and O'Day were fired, I guess this answers it. Not really severe infractions by any means, however neither of them took steps to report or stop what was going on. Learning experience for all, now can we get down to football!!
 
So basically, according to the NCAA, the Griz haven't had a winning season since 2010. And haven't made the playoffs since 09. Faq!!
 
However every university has these issues. People buy guys drinks or food all the time at big universitys. What I gainer from this is.....there was not that much of a problem but the ncaa had to do something. 4 scholarships won't hurt that bad. The university already imposed all these things and that is why there is no post season ban. Props to Royce for doing the right things and Kent for handling everything well
 
GrizPony said:
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.

I was referring more to the posting bond and legal services not the meals
 
billings_poke said:
GrizPony said:
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.

I was referring more to the posting bond and legal services not the meals

Got it. Sorry.
 
NLGrizFan said:
So basically, according to the NCAA, the Griz haven't had a winning season since 2010. And haven't made the playoffs since 09. Faq!!

6-3 is a winning season, but yes no playoffs since that time. All the more motivation for the team this season.
 
PlayerRep said:
maroonandsilver said:
While we may never know the actual reasons Engstrom fired the coach and AD, these are reasons enuf!

I disagree. The coach probably didn't even know that the it was a violation for a parent to put up $340, at the request of a player's family, to bail someone out and get paid back a week later. None of this was thought to be serious prior to the firing of the coach/AD.

The university counsel did a review of the hiring of legal counsel for the taser guys and that subject generally, and didn't conclude that it was a problem. There's a written report/analysis on that subject from several months after the taser incident.

The AD is hardly mentioned, except that he was the AD. Even if all of this had been serious at the time of the firings, which it wasn't, what would be the grounds for firing?

If a claim is ever brought against the university for a firing, we'll find out the reasons, and who knew what and when. I suspect that emails and depositions would show that the firings had little or nothing to do with the ncaa stuff.
Really? your still going to try to spin this that way?

the AD KNEW about the free legal counsel, as did the compliance officer, and neither reported it. that is the violation. If he doesn't know its a violation he should be an AD, Engstrom saved your guys butts by firing these 2 clowns
 
I'm just pissed about the altered Brawl record.

Actually quick question: if the Griz vacate wins, do the other teams get to count those as victories or is it like the game is completely wiped away?
 
this shows why Pflugrad has never been nor should he ever be a head coach. It was clear in his first year that he was not disciplining the team and now he failed in his responsibility to report issues to the University. In his position as head coach he could also have been in contact with the certain booster about their inappropriate activities. I personally think he got off to lightly on this. I think he should be banned for life as a head coach.
 
gah-riz said:
NLGrizFan said:
So basically, according to the NCAA, the Griz haven't had a winning season since 2010. And haven't made the playoffs since 09. Faq!!

6-3 is a winning season, but yes no playoffs since that time. All the more motivation for the team this season.
Oops. I was thinking the 5 regular season games...
 
All I compute/care about in any and all of this retarded bullshit is:

NO POST SEASON BAN MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!!!!
YEEEEEEEEEOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

Gonna be a special season.
Lets Do This.
 
If I'm reading this report as an outsider, my first reaction is 'wait, there's an FCS team with boosters?' UM really is breathing rarefied air when it comes to community support. Just look at the back page of an opponent's program during an away game and you'll find that Montana has ten times the supporters of a typical FCS school -- not the Sheehan type, the $100 to $500 a year scholarship association type. The situation is so rare, I really doubt managing athlete-booster relations comes up in conversation with other Big Sky ADs. Which raises another question. Wrangling boosters sounds like it could be a full-time job for an assistant AD at a bigger school and quite possibly UM. Does Montana even have the resources to hire such a person? A compliance officer is one thing, but it seems quite another to have someone to watch the tailgates, watch the boosters interacting with players and their parents and players interacting with just about anyone in Missoula.

Secondly, parents of players shouldn't be classified as boosters. That's just silly. They should be allowed to interact, share a tailgate, befriend the friends of their children. The NCAA is always saying the that student athlete's college experience shouldn't be different than the non athlete student. Well these friendships are some of the best a student will ever have and that should go for their parents, too. How sad that the NCAA doesn't see this.

This punishment seems acceptable, other than the scholarship loss which hurts students who weren't enrolled at Montana during the time of the violation. You void games for the season in question and that pretty well keeps the burden on the participants of that season, which seems fair.
 
PlayerRep said:
maroonandsilver said:
While we may never know the actual reasons Engstrom fired the coach and AD, these are reasons enuf!

I disagree. The coach probably didn't even know that the it was a violation for a parent to put up $340, at the request of a player's family, to bail someone out and get paid back a week later. None of this was thought to be serious prior to the firing of the coach/AD.

The university counsel did a review of the hiring of legal counsel for the taser guys and that subject generally, and didn't conclude that it was a problem. There's a written report/analysis on that subject from several months after the taser incident.

The AD is hardly mentioned, except that he was the AD. Even if all of this had been serious at the time of the firings, which it wasn't, what would be the grounds for firing?

If a claim is ever brought against the university for a firing, we'll find out the reasons, and who knew what and when. I suspect that emails and depositions would show that the firings had little or nothing to do with the ncaa stuff.

PR:
I know you couldn't give a hoot that I agree with your post but I do. You're 100% correct on your assessment of the firings of
Pflugrad and O'Day. Monday morning quarterbacking now and trying to say that RE acted the way he did because he saw this
coming is ridiculous. RE was feeling pressured about the rape allegations pure and simple. That's why he moved on those two.
 
I also see in the Missoulian report that assistant higher ed commissioner Kevin McRae is back to speaking on behalf of the University of Montana. Between McRae and $165k a year UM spokeswoman Peggy Kuhr, Royce Engstrom rarely speaks for the UM on controversial matters.

I don't see McRae stepping in to speak for Waded Cruzado.
 
The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.
 
fencer24 said:
The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.
one of the things you are forgetting is that an assistant AD hand delivered the players to the booster who provided the free legal service.
 
As long as there isn't a "referral fee" it's not a bad idea to recommend an attorney who is skilled in that area.
 
Back
Top