NCAA

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

Just got back from the Press Box and the talk down there was
the U is going to anounce a volantary 2 year ban on post season play
To soften the blow of the NCAA. WTF? I am not making this sh*t up.
Anybody else hear it today?

I know i will be crucified for drudging this back up, but I heard the same thing today from someone involved with griz athletics. Also heard that they may forfeit wins from 2010-2011. It's still only hear-say, regardless of whether they are involved in Griz athletics, so take it for what its worth. Im preparing myself mentally for this possibility.

 

[George Ferguson]

smh

 

[BWahlberg]

Just got back from the Press Box and the talk down there was
the U is going to anounce a volantary 2 year ban on post season play
To soften the blow of the NCAA. WTF? I am not making this sh*t up.
Anybody else hear it today?

I know i will be crucified for drudging this back up, but I heard the same thing today from someone involved with griz athletics. Also heard that they may forfeit wins from 2010-2011. It's still only hear-say, regardless of whether they are involved in Griz athletics, so take it for what its worth. Im preparing myself mentally for this possibility.

If ANYONE at the UM offers up a voluntary post-season ban the community outrage will equal nothing like they've seen at main hall before. Like it or hate it, home games are a HUGE economic driver for the city - and if main hall or the athletic dept thinks a voluntary post-season ban for warm fuzzies from the NCAA will be good they've got another thing coming. You'll have the businesses that support athletics and the campus cut their support way back because they won't agree with a decision to do so voluntarily as well as they'll have lost a crap-ton of revenue because of a decision like that.

I preface that with if this is a voluntary thing - if the NCAA deems it, that's another thing. However if the UM would for one second think this is a good "offering" without the NCAA bringing up enforcing it first - that's dumb and it will have rippling effects on our local economy.

This is a nasty rumor that's swirling. I heard it last week and got it straight from two people within athletics. "No, not happening." (in terms of a voluntary ban).

 

[Willie]

Go Florio yourself.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

Just got back from the Press Box and the talk down there was
the U is going to anounce a volantary 2 year ban on post season play
To soften the blow of the NCAA. WTF? I am not making this sh*t up.
Anybody else hear it today?

I know i will be crucified for drudging this back up, but I heard the same thing today from someone involved with griz athletics. Also heard that they may forfeit wins from 2010-2011. It's still only hear-say, regardless of whether they are involved in Griz athletics, so take it for what its worth. Im preparing myself mentally for this possibility.

If ANYONE at the UM offers up a voluntary post-season ban the community outrage will equal nothing like they've seen at main hall before. Like it or hate it, home games are a HUGE economic driver for the city - and if main hall or the athletic dept thinks a voluntary post-season ban for warm fuzzies from the NCAA will be good they've got another thing coming. You'll have the businesses that support athletics and the campus cut their support way back because they won't agree with a decision to do so voluntarily as well as they'll have lost a crap-ton of revenue because of a decision like that.

I preface that with if this is a voluntary thing - if the NCAA deems it, that's another thing. However if the UM would for one second think this is a good "offering" without the NCAA bringing up enforcing it first - that's dumb and it will have rippling effects on our local economy.

This is a nasty rumor that's swirling. I heard it last week and got it straight from two people within athletics. "No, not happening." (in terms of a voluntary ban).

I hope nothing of this nature happens, voluntary or involuntary, for the sake of the community businesses and our fanbase. I will nonetheless be bracing myself for what may come in the next few weeks.

 

[BWahlberg]

Quite frankly, unless there's something hidden that we don't know of... I'm not too worried.

The Penn St comparison is so far off-base it's laughable.

Did the UM cover-up the rapes allegedly committed by Johnson and Donaldson in an effort to keep winning football games? No. Did Penn St with Sandusky? Yes.

Did the UM or certain factions within the UM allow rapes to KNOWINGLY occur for in excess of a decade (or at all)? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM's internal investigation show a long string of staff/leadership knowledge of rapes and inaction in response to them? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM Athletic Dept have the ability to knowingly report and stop any of the rapes that have allegedly occurred because of knowledge of prior actions by the alleged perpetrators? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Has anyone at the UM been found guilty by a court of law of rape? No (not yet) Did Penn St? Yes.

The final point is what I will bet the NCAA is watching and waiting on, they acted quite swiftly after Sandusky was found guilty - with the Freeh report and with a conviction by a jury it was easy for the NCAA to act. In the UM's case I don't see this being an easy process and I don't see the Athletic Dept without blame here.

I just don't see how a multiple year playoff ban could be sanctioned, unless there's some earth-shattering stuff we just don't know of quite yet. Look at Ohio State who knowingly let players violate all sorts of NCAA rules, or USC as well. Both got a 1-year ban.

How on earth would the UM get stiffer punishments if what's known today is the total facts around the NCAA investigation?

 

[MissoulaCanucksFan]

I thought USC's postseason ban was two years?

 

[HIPPIESRULE]

Hauck and UNLV are also going to get penalties imposed from this investigation.

 

[uofmman1122]

Hauck and UNLV are also going to get penalties imposed from this investigation.

:lol: :lol:

Just like how the NCAA penalized Paul Wulff and WSU after he left EWU?

You're an idiot.

 

[Growler1]

Quite frankly, unless there's something hidden that we don't know of... I'm not too worried.

The Penn St comparison is so far off-base it's laughable.

Did the UM cover-up the rapes allegedly committed by Johnson and Donaldson in an effort to keep winning football games? No. Did Penn St with Sandusky? Yes.

Did the UM or certain factions within the UM allow rapes to KNOWINGLY occur for in excess of a decade (or at all)? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM's internal investigation show a long string of staff/leadership knowledge of rapes and inaction in response to them? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM Athletic Dept have the ability to knowingly report and stop any of the rapes that have allegedly occurred because of knowledge of prior actions by the alleged perpetrators? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Has anyone at the UM been found guilty by a court of law of rape? No (not yet) Did Penn St? Yes.

The final point is what I will bet the NCAA is watching and waiting on, they acted quite swiftly after Sandusky was found guilty - with the Freeh report and with a conviction by a jury it was easy for the NCAA to act. In the UM's case I don't see this being an easy process and I don't see the Athletic Dept without blame here.

I just don't see how a multiple year playoff ban could be sanctioned, unless there's some earth-shattering stuff we just don't know of quite yet. Look at Ohio State who knowingly let players violate all sorts of NCAA rules, or USC as well. Both got a 1-year ban.

How on earth would the UM get stiffer punishments if what's known today is the total facts around the NCAA investigation?

The NCAA does not spend the amount of time it has spent investigating without coming up with some sanctions. Take it to the bank.

 

[EverettGriz]

How on earth would the UM get stiffer punishments if what's known today is the total facts around the NCAA investigation?

While I highly doubt a two year ban is coming, the answer to your question above is that the NCAA is anything but a fair, equitable and noble group. They would punish UM harder than USC or Ohio State because they can do so and take credit for how tough of a stance they took, and do so without one million fans making angry calls to them, and most importantly, without jeopardizing so much as a one cent of NCAA revenue.

 

[scottsdalegriz]

Quite frankly, unless there's something hidden that we don't know of... I'm not too worried.

The Penn St comparison is so far off-base it's laughable.

Did the UM cover-up the rapes allegedly committed by Johnson and Donaldson in an effort to keep winning football games? No. Did Penn St with Sandusky? Yes.

Did the UM or certain factions within the UM allow rapes to KNOWINGLY occur for in excess of a decade (or at all)? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM's internal investigation show a long string of staff/leadership knowledge of rapes and inaction in response to them? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Did the UM Athletic Dept have the ability to knowingly report and stop any of the rapes that have allegedly occurred because of knowledge of prior actions by the alleged perpetrators? No. Did Penn St? Yes.

Has anyone at the UM been found guilty by a court of law of rape? No (not yet) Did Penn St? Yes.

The final point is what I will bet the NCAA is watching and waiting on, they acted quite swiftly after Sandusky was found guilty - with the Freeh report and with a conviction by a jury it was easy for the NCAA to act. In the UM's case I don't see this being an easy process and I don't see the Athletic Dept without blame here.

I just don't see how a multiple year playoff ban could be sanctioned, unless there's some earth-shattering stuff we just don't know of quite yet. Look at Ohio State who knowingly let players violate all sorts of NCAA rules, or USC as well. Both got a 1-year ban.

How on earth would the UM get stiffer punishments if what's known today is the total facts around the NCAA investigation?

I think the biggest difference between the two is did a college employee witness a rape happening on campus property that was subsequently covered up and not reported. No. That is what makes the Penn State case stand apart from every other case. This wasn't based on gossip or a rumor. There was an actual witness who was employed by the university and nothing was done because the culture there did not permit anything to happen without the consent of Joe Pa. If a coach had walked in on one of our players sexually assaulting another student and then after talking with the head coach they decided to not call the police and file a proper report based on what was witnessed then I would have to say throw the book at us. We deserve everything coming in that instance. Quite frankly I think Penn State got off way to easy and I would think the same if Montana was guilty of the same infraction. However that is simply not what happened here. There were no university employees who witnessed a crime and then was forced to cover it up based on a direct order from their superiors.

 

[nzone]

Kinda putting the cart before the horse aren't we. Lets see what the NCAA finds(if anything) before talking penalties. I thought Engstrom mentioned he didn't know what they we're looking at. The NCAA can't just drum stuff up w/o a negative affect on they're own integrity. In some ways I'm beginning to think that all this has been handled without much thought by main hall. We'll see I guess.

 

[UMGriz75]

A significant difference is that everyone had "a pretty good idea" why NCAA was investigating Penn State.

Nobody really has any idea why they are investigating UM.

"The problem" is that the regulations have become so complex -- Byzantine -- that any program in the country can be found in non-compliance with something, if the NCAA decides to investigate.

 

[Tokyogriz]

I could actually see Royce Engstrom coming up with that idea. Fits his very obvious intention of dismantaling UM Football and also shifting as much of the "Blame" for any problems from UMs general campus to the football department.