NCAA Sanctions

[Tod]

Miami's NCAA issues were not self-reported. Jim Foley had nothing to do with any of UM's NCAA issues, to my knowledge. The NCAA may think failure to report that another player's mom put up money to bail out her son's friend (and it wasn't repaid for a week or so), but I don't. Not saying the NCAA won't try to make a big deal of a possible failure to report like this, but I believe it's minor and silly. At today's interest rates, the interest on that loan would have been measured in pennies. That extra benefit would make the Portland golfer's $20 car washing violation look huge.

You must be a good citizen to not know this, but most people in jail don't have access to loans given at today's interest rate as quoted at the local bank. If he would have gotten the loan through a bondsman, (who are usually the only people to give such loans) the rate would actually be quite a bit. My guess is that is the NCAA's angle on this.

Bondsmen don't charge interest. It's 10% of the bail, plus $30 for paperwork (if it's a small bond). Source: Sons-in-law are bondsmen.

 

[GrizLA]

Here's what I know....we have a 12 game regular season and I hope the players kick ass. If we move on great but for now we are guaranteed 12 games. Make the best of it!!

Sometimes, it is hard to accept the obvious. 12-0 would be better than good!

 

[Sportin' Life]

Miami's NCAA issues were not self-reported. Jim Foley had nothing to do with any of UM's NCAA issues, to my knowledge. The NCAA may think failure to report that another player's mom put up money to bail out her son's friend (and it wasn't repaid for a week or so), but I don't. Not saying the NCAA won't try to make a big deal of a possible failure to report like this, but I believe it's minor and silly. At today's interest rates, the interest on that loan would have been measured in pennies. That extra benefit would make the Portland golfer's $20 car washing violation look huge.

You must be a good citizen to know this, but most people in jail don't have access to loans given at today's interest rate as quoted at the local bank. If he would have gotten the loan through a bondsman, (who are usually the only people to give such loans) the rate would actually be quite a bit. My guess is that is the NCAA's angle on this.

Friends and relatives loan money to bail people out all the time, especially when there's not much money involved and there is virtually zero risk on non-payment. Bail bondsmen aren't commonly used for small amounts of money, which this must have been. Are you saying that a UM player couldn't get a loan at a reasonable rate for a small amount of money? Even at a high rate, the interest would be tiny for a week or so long loan on a small amount of amount. Where is the extra benefit? Parents do things like this at the request of their sons and daughters all the time. This wasn't done because a football player was involved. This was a situation where the parents knew the player and his family. Of course, the NCAA thinks using a university hose is an extra benefit, so they'll probably view this as the crime of the century. And think of the severity of the crime if a coach and athletic department heard about this, and didn't make sure that it was repaid faster than a week or so.

I get all that. But if the NCAA says who can go to dinner with whom, then I think they probably think this is an extra benefit. I have no idea what the benefit is, or what his bond was but I was just saying that my guess is this is what the NCAA is thinking.

 

[getgrizzy]

i.m.o. the loans aren't the main finding. that probably happened without the knowledge of anyone on staff. the biggest issue are the perks given to the player by our athletic department staff. that staff person either did that knowingly or unknowingly, but either way it is not good. they either knew they were doing the wrong thing and did it anyway or didn't know and there's no excuse for that. to compound things there's likely to be more than one staff person, aside from the one doing it that knew this was going on, but didn't report it and that could be crushing. the person giving the perks has been fired, so it's not likely that they're trying to protect anyone. of course, trying to cover it up would create an even larger problem, so hopefully they're just putting it all out there. the person they were giving the perks to was a starter, which also compounds things. the n.c.a.a. usually goes easier when it involves players that don't see the field.

the loan is the next biggest issue, but it's a distant second. if athletic dept. staff knew about, it would move it into at least a tie. way down there at third are the hot dogs from fans. all of those things going on at roughly the same time looks really bad, because now the n.c.a.a. probably thinks this kind of thing has been going on here for a long time.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

i.m.o. the loans aren't the main finding. that probably happened without the knowledge of anyone on staff. the biggest issue are the perks given to the player by our athletic department staff. that staff person either did that knowingly or unknowingly, but either way it is not good. they either knew they were doing the wrong thing and did it anyway or didn't know and there's no excuse for that. to compound things there's likely to be more than one staff person, aside from the one doing it that knew this was going on, but didn't report it and that could be crushing. the person giving the perks has been fired, so it's not likely that they're trying to protect anyone. of course, trying to cover it up would create an even larger problem, so hopefully they're just putting it all out there. the person they were giving the perks to was a starter, which also compounds things. the n.c.a.a. usually goes easier when it involves players that don't see the field.

the loan is the next biggest issue, but it's a distant second. if athletic dept. staff knew about, it would move it into at least a tie. way down there at third are the hot dogs from fans. all of those things going on at roughly the same time looks really bad, because now the n.c.a.a. probably thinks this kind of thing has been going on here for a long time.

I wouldn't categorize some in-home meals and some laundry, for a kid who was struggling because a close relative had died (like his mom), as "perks".

 

[GrizPony]

Engstrom is still sitting on the decision to reinstate Poole. I wonder if he is going to make that after the report comes out for political purposes?

Poole is still on probation so that decision can't be made. Once he is off probation then Engstrom will have to decide.

Wrong.

This proved true!

 

[GrizPony]

This whole fiasco has been overblown from the start.

How do you know?

Here is what I know:

--We have a bunch of puffed-up people "in the know" with unnamed contacts in the Athletic Department saying UM will suffer major consequences from violations ranging from ineligible players to hot dogs at tailgates. Punishment ranging from loss of scholarships to forfeiture of games and playoff bans. These people have been sworn to secrecy.

--We have a bunch of puffed-up people "in the know" with unnamed contacts in the Athletic Department saying the violations are minor, and the U will get just a slap on the wrist because the NCAA has to come up with something the justify their investigation. These people have also been sworn to secrecy.

--We will know "Any Day". (This I think we have been hearing since last April or May)

--So what I really know, what I can make a judgment on, is exactly what I knew a year and a half ago. Nothing.

I understand what you are saying, but I am stating my personal opinion is that this matter is overblown, the NCAA may see it differently because the final report is not done yet. However, the "rampant rape" allegations were primarily bullshit, other than Donaldson, and he was never mentioned when it first came up. The hotdog and meal stuff never clearly violated the "occasional home cooked meal" parameters in the NCAA regs in my opinion either. Now the A.D.'s position has changed and it is three total outings per year. I can state with certainty that this is a change from past interpretations by our administration. The paying of a bond by another player's parent, and the repayment several days later is so nit-picky I can't believe it. Had it been paid by an agent or booster with no request for repayment, then yes, that would be a big deal. But it wasn't. Do I think the NCAA will come in for over a year and leave without a pound of flesh from a supple and willing host like Engstrom? Nope. Does that mean it all still wasn't overblown? Nope. :thumb:

And I still stand by these comments. :thumb:

 

[GrizPony]

This whole fiasco has been overblown from the start.

How do you know?

Here is what I know:

--We have a bunch of puffed-up people "in the know" with unnamed contacts in the Athletic Department saying UM will suffer major consequences from violations ranging from ineligible players to hot dogs at tailgates. Punishment ranging from loss of scholarships to forfeiture of games and playoff bans. These people have been sworn to secrecy.

--We have a bunch of puffed-up people "in the know" with unnamed contacts in the Athletic Department saying the violations are minor, and the U will get just a slap on the wrist because the NCAA has to come up with something the justify their investigation. These people have also been sworn to secrecy.

--We will know "Any Day". (This I think we have been hearing since last April or May)

--So what I really know, what I can make a judgment on, is exactly what I knew a year and a half ago. Nothing.

I understand what you are saying, but I am stating my personal opinion is that this matter is overblown, the NCAA may see it differently because the final report is not done yet. However, the "rampant rape" allegations were primarily bullshit, other than Donaldson, and he was never mentioned when it first came up. The hotdog and meal stuff never clearly violated the "occasional home cooked meal" parameters in the NCAA regs in my opinion either. Now the A.D.'s position has changed and it is three total outings per year. I can state with certainty that this is a change from past interpretations by our administration. The paying of a bond by another player's parent, and the repayment several days later is so nit-picky I can't believe it. Had it been paid by an agent or booster with no request for repayment, then yes, that would be a big deal. But it wasn't. Do I think the NCAA will come in for over a year and leave without a pound of flesh from a supple and willing host like Engstrom? Nope. Does that mean it all still wasn't overblown? Nope. :thumb:

I still stand by this pre-report post.

 

[TxGriz]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...hnny-manziel-signed-two-more-sessions-sources

 

[GrizMusician]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...hnny-manziel-signed-two-more-sessions-sources

That kid is such a f*cktard.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BDizzle]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...hnny-manziel-signed-two-more-sessions-sources

That kid is such a f*cktard.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

While I agree he is screwing himself over it would be tough to turn down money to sign your name on some items. The funny thing is his family is already loaded so he probably doesn't need the money.

 

[OptimusPrime]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...hnny-manziel-signed-two-more-sessions-sources

That kid is such a f*cktard.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

While I agree he is screwing himself over it would be tough to turn down money to sign your name on some items. The funny thing is his family is already loaded so he probably doesn't need the money.

Not as much as you think...
http://deadspin.com/the-long-con-how-the-manziels-conquered-america-1040593220" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GrizMusician]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...hnny-manziel-signed-two-more-sessions-sources

That kid is such a f*cktard.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

While I agree he is screwing himself over it would be tough to turn down money to sign your name on some items. The funny thing is his family is already loaded so he probably doesn't need the money.

Absolutely agree. I would have a hard time not signing my name for some cash, but I am in a much different financial state than Manziel.

Whether or not players should be able to sell autographs isn't my issue either... it's the fact that he seems to think he is above the rules while player like Clowney or McCarron "get it" & can stay out of the news for the wrong reasons (and many Griz or Cat players).

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD