-
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 Sanctions
- Thread starter GrizPony
- Start date
No matter what happens this team can still accomplish at least 2 of its goals. They can go to Bozeman and beat the cats and win the conference title. Then the FCS playoffs would be totally diluted without App State, Georgia Southern, and Montana. All I can say is whatever the penalty is it really should fit the violation. Until we know let's concentrate on winning the conference and let the cards fall where they fall. My prediction is 7-1 in the conference with a loss to either ewoo , nau, or cal poly.
Go Griz! :thumb:
Go Griz! :thumb:
Not necessarily, usually when the NCAA levies a post season ban on a team, the conference follows through with making said team ineligible for conf title in the same year, regardless of the record, and your other goal is just pie in the sky dreaming on your part :thumb:nzone said:
'68griz said:
How about if it turns out that people knowingly and idiotically broke the rules, then just run the said idiots out of town, rather than defer the blame.
Washgrizfan1
Well-known member
tnt said:
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.
How do you know?GrizPony said:
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.
GrizPony
Well-known member
maroonandsilver said:
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:
Washgrizfan1 said:
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.
Washgrizfan1
Well-known member
Sportin' Life said:
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.
