NCAA Loses a Big One!

[UMGriz75]

Recall that Kemp was on the phone with his grandpa when the bad part of the incident occurred. The "loan" was repaid within a week. What mom would not do this for an out-of-town friend? The main violation was UM's failure to report this to the ncaa, even though the coaches didn't really know whether the mom was technically a booster or not.

UM had every ground to challenge the NCAA on that particular charge. It was absurd. The coaches can't possibly be expected to "know" who is paying bail and the "appropriate" time frame for repayment, and what NCAA reg applies. Is there a "booster" reporting requirement? The entire notion was absolutely absurd.

Engstrom should have just laughed at that one as the most appropriate response and said "do what you think you need to do. We are not even going to consider that one and we will fight it if you do." It was too ridiculous. Jurisdiction aside, the negative PR from that one was a killer because it reached that certain milestone of bureaucratic inanity that even the most inane bureaucrat would finally realize, "this looks too stupid, even for us."

Of course, Engstrom wouldn't do that.

So, he set our precedent. Our coaches actually have to advise the athletes of the nature of the world they live in and pretend that, at UM, this is just and fair and reasonable.

And outstanding athletes were, instead, stripped of the record of the hard work and successes that they had made for themselves, in their pride at representing the University of Montana.

 

[GrizRanger]

Recall that Kemp was on the phone with his grandpa when the bad part of the incident occurred. The "loan" was repaid within a week. What mom would not do this for an out-of-town friend? The main violation was UM's failure to report this to the ncaa, even though the coaches didn't really know whether the mom was technically a booster or not.

UM had every ground to challenge the NCAA on that particular charge. It was absurd. The coaches can't possibly be expected to "know" who is paying bail and the "appropriate" time frame for repayment, and what NCAA reg applies. Is there a "booster" reporting requirement? The entire notion was absolutely absurd.

Engstrom should have just laughed at that one as the most appropriate response and said "do what you think you need to do. We are not even going to consider that one and we will fight it if you do." It was too ridiculous. Jurisdiction aside, the negative PR from that one was a killer because it reached that certain milestone of bureaucratic inanity that even the most inane bureaucrat would finally realize, "this looks too stupid, even for us."

Of course, Engstrom wouldn't do that.

So, he set our precedent. Our coaches actually have to advise the athletes of the nature of the world they live in and pretend that, at UM, this is just and fair and reasonable.

And outstanding athletes were, instead, stripped of the record of the hard work and successes that they had made for themselves, in their pride at representing the University of Montana.

I don't know, but I suspect that Engstrom was pleased as punch that NCAA wanted to reduce UM football scholarships.

RE was likely pleased to have NCAA to blame for loss of Griz football scholarships. He'd likely agree to even greater loss of football scholarships if he could get away with it (i.e., find a scapegoat for such loses other than himself).