Le ****** discussion on NCAA.. makes sense

[monkey1371]

How though? Once the NCAA announces the penalties everyone knows whats going on. There is no cloud of uncertainty. The core principle of his article is deeply flawed and based on nothing.

Plus, this is ignoring the fact that there is little to no chance that we get another bowl ban. Outside of Penn State there has never been three bowl bans and two is extremely rare.

Once again, "what he's saying" has no basis in fact or logic. Its lazy speculation based upon a lack of information. THAT is the type of **** that hurts the program, and thats hwy he deserves a spot in the CIS Hall of ***gots.

Yes historical precedent states that 3 bowl bans is extremely unlikely with only PSU since the late 80's getting getting more than 2(However there have been 9-10 teams in the past that have gotten 3 or 4 year bowl bans).......But nothing in this case makes sense....So just because we keep repeating that only 2 years is fair does not make it absolutely true....

Based upon the simple concept that we have gone above and beyond in the level of cooperation compared to every other school, we self-imposed harsher penalties than anyone else in history.........Yet the NCAA was still looking to *****,hammer,[insert word] us......How can anyone assume that 3 bowl bans was not probably on the table? Especially after watching the NCAA act harshly in USC & PSU cases.

And back to the main concept.

Once the NCAA announces punishment...There is only "no cloud of uncertainty" if we accept the punishment. If we decide to sue and fight.....still a cloud. Say the NCAA gives us 15 schollies and 1 more bowl ban? OK..We fight. We are not guaranteed victory.....There is still uncertainty as to when the additional penalties would be enforced if we lose. It is no different than trying to recruit now because there is no resolution.

The core principle of his article 100% spot on.........Unfortunately in these cases.......Schools have to choose between 2 crappy options and the NCAA doesn't...that is his premise and I don't see what is so "controversial" about that.

 

[jakeman1]

Sooooo, two bowl bans, giving up the ACCCG, recruiting visit restrictions, scholarship reductions already taken, for what amounts to less than 20k of illegal benefits, is not enough? Mmmmm. No. Which part about Shapiro lying about a lot of accusations do people not get? If they announce any kind of additional punishment, unless it's time served, penalties already imposed, and probation, I'd take them to court. It won't hurt anything to try.

 

[Kn[]_[]ckles3o5]

USC dropped $300,000 in Reggie Bush's lap. OSU players sold team equipment and team awards for "tattoo's" to a known drug dealer and money launderer while driving in "leased" cars.


So far all that has come out is Miami paid for some meals and hotel stays.


The worst thing that has come out so far is that COACHES NOT PLAYERS accepted some no interest loans that they paid back. The NCAA wants to levy the additional scholarships and recruiting restrictions. Possibly some sort of unprecedented probation stipulation like a 3 strikes policy or something.


Bottom line we don't deserve anything worse than what OSU received and we have already self imposed the majority of those level sanctions. NCAA wants us to shut up so they can sweep this all under the rug.


I suggest all of you fans stop reading articles by idiots that know absolutely nothing. Hang out enjoy March Madness, get hyped for this weekend's possibly season defining road trip to that **** hole up north, and soak up the news coming out of spring practice. This will be resolved by August and we will no longer have to guess at what will happen.

 

[The Franchise]

Ive heard LeBatard talk about this multiple times and it makes absolutely no ****ing sense. He's an idiot who hasnt been following the story and has no clue as to how the NCAA process or legal system works. Suing the NCAA wouldn't happen until after the NCAA sanctions come out already. The NCAA can't sanction us MORE because we file a lawsuit, and the judge doesnt have the power to sanction us either. There will be no uncertainty in terms of bowl appearances and scholarships while the lawsuit is pending. We will know the ceiling of what our penalties are, and in the remote event a lawsuit changes anything it will be in our favor.

So in short, Le Batard has no earthly idea what he is talking about and should stick to parading his dad's accent around and race baiting.

But that is not what he is saying......If you read the article.

He is stating.....that the NCAA was not going to say what we self-imposed was enough no matter what and always add something more(not that they are going to add more for a lawsuit...nobody said that)...under the premise that you don't let a guilty party decide what their own punishment should be.

But more to the point.....He was arguing that it is basically a "NO-WIN" scenario to fight and sue the NCAA......If you sue, your situation still will not be resolved for how long....1,2,3+ years......Meanwhile, you still have recruiting class after recruiting class extremely hampered because of it.....So your in default probation anyway for even longer. If you win....Great....But we will be talking about 2015,2016 maybe until this is all cleared.

He was just expressing the point that by suing the NCAA and dragging this out further.....UM still will be suffering while the NCAA is not....That is why very few schools will challenge the NCAA.


Is 10-15 scholarships and another bowl ban worth dragging this out for another 2-3 years? Most schools decide that the "extra penalty" is worth more than another 2+ years of the black cloud.

How though? Once the NCAA announces the penalties everyone knows whats going on. There is no cloud of uncertainty. The core principle of his article is deeply flawed and based on nothing.

Plus, this is ignoring the fact that there is little to no chance that we get another bowl ban. Outside of Penn State there has never been three bowl bans and two is extremely rare.

Once again, "what he's saying" has no basis in fact or logic. Its lazy speculation based upon a lack of information. THAT is the type of **** that hurts the program, and thats hwy he deserves a spot in the CIS Hall of ***gots.

Exactly. Once they announce the penalties, the cloud of uncertainty is gone. It is the cloud of uncertainty that has been killing the program the last couple of years, which is why I've been beating the drum that the 2.5 years of **** they've dragged us through has been a penalty in and of itself.

On top of that, the court will stay the extra penalties until the lawsuit is resolved because there would be no way to reverse the harm of having us miss another bowl game when it is later determined by the court that that extra bowl game was not a valid penalty.

 

[The Franchise]

Lebetard is kicking himself for not breaking this story and selling out his alma mater once again

Correct. I haven't listened to a word that that scumbag ****** has said since he sold out his alma mater to get famous several years ago.

 

[Kn[]_[]ckles3o5]

If we do end up having to sue the NCAA. I would want the team to serve the additional penalties and sue for significant financial restitution and/or dissolution of the NCAA.

 

[samichesrdelicious]

Y'all are missing it. Whether we sue or not, after the infractions come down, the uncertainty is gone. We are not going to get extra penalties later (after we exhaust NCAA appeals) because we sue. Lebatard's premise (and most of what I am reading in the thread) is wrong. Once penalties come down, they are what they are unless we somehow later prevail in a court battle and they somehow get reduced. There's no added uncertainty; the worst will already be known to recruits, the institution, families, fans, the media, etc. It could only get better (albeit after a protracted legal fight). It can't get worse. period.

How though? Once the NCAA announces the penalties everyone knows whats going on. There is no cloud of uncertainty. The core principle of his article is deeply flawed and based on nothing.

Plus, this is ignoring the fact that there is little to no chance that we get another bowl ban. Outside of Penn State there has never been three bowl bans and two is extremely rare.

Once again, "what he's saying" has no basis in fact or logic. Its lazy speculation based upon a lack of information. THAT is the type of **** that hurts the program, and thats hwy he deserves a spot in the CIS Hall of ***gots.

Yes historical precedent states that 3 bowl bans is extremely unlikely with only PSU since the late 80's getting getting more than 2(However there have been 9-10 teams in the past that have gotten 3 or 4 year bowl bans).......But nothing in this case makes sense....So just because we keep repeating that only 2 years is fair does not make it absolutely true....

Based upon the simple concept that we have gone above and beyond in the level of cooperation compared to every other school, we self-imposed harsher penalties than anyone else in history.........Yet the NCAA was still looking to *****,hammer,[insert word] us......How can anyone assume that 3 bowl bans was not probably on the table? Especially after watching the NCAA act harshly in USC & PSU cases.

And back to the main concept.

Once the NCAA announces punishment...There is only "no cloud of uncertainty" if we accept the punishment. If we decide to sue and fight.....still a cloud. Say the NCAA gives us 15 schollies and 1 more bowl ban? OK..We fight. We are not guaranteed victory.....There is still uncertainty as to when the additional penalties would be enforced if we lose. It is no different than trying to recruit now because there is no resolution.

The core principle of his article 100% spot on.........Unfortunately in these cases.......Schools have to choose between 2 crappy options and the NCAA doesn't...that is his premise and I don't see what is so "controversial" about that.

 

[Cal jimmy]

I do wonder if Canes self imposed bowl bans is, to the NCAA, equal to theirs?

I figure the NCAA wants to a) punish Miami and b) save face. If that is the case I suspect they will argue that Miami only chose to walk away from a bowl ban late in the season as opposed to announcing it early on, before start of the season. The impact is different. They will say announcing early would have sent a clearer message and, more importantly, they missed only a low level bowl opportunity in 2011.

I think the U can fight back on that premise by looking at 2012 where the U walked away from a Conference Championship game and a potential Orange Bowl bid. The haters will say Miami wasn't going to win vs FSU anyway but that is nonsensical argument; that's why they play the game!

Bottom line is that NCAA is going to undersell impact of self imposed penalties. I assume in turn the U can show lost revenue as a result of their actions as well as players who missed an opportunity.

Does that lead to settlement or litigation?

 

[SmokeyRone]

One more bowl ban would suck, excuse the understatement. The Coastal is ours for the taking, and a 9-11 win season and BCS bowl a real possibility

Schollie losses could also be crippling, like in '95

 

[samichesrdelicious]

i agree with all you said, but i don't think you can self impose until you are eligible, and then, once you are, you can't delay until after a Conference Championship game. So the timing is very controlled. They might still say we self-imposed for a meaningless bowl (which in our case would be silly b/c we are talking about the ACCCG), but how can the NCAA argue that any bowl is meaningless. I mean it's a little offensive to the whole bowl process, no? Are they going to admit that 2/3s of the bowls are BS, money producing ventures for member institutions?

I do wonder if Canes self imposed bowl bans is, to the NCAA, equal to theirs?

I figure the NCAA wants to a) punish Miami and b) save face. If that is the case I suspect they will argue that Miami only chose to walk away from a bowl ban late in the season as opposed to announcing it early on, before start of the season. The impact is different. They will say announcing early would have sent a clearer message and, more importantly, they missed only a low level bowl opportunity in 2011.

I think the U can fight back on that premise by looking at 2012 where the U walked away from a Conference Championship game and a potential Orange Bowl bid. The haters will say Miami wasn't going to win vs FSU anyway but that is nonsensical argument; that's why they play the game!

Bottom line is that NCAA is going to undersell impact of self imposed penalties. I assume in turn the U can show lost revenue as a result of their actions as well as players who missed an opportunity.

Does that lead to settlement or litigation?

 

[The Franchise]

i agree with all you said, but i don't think you can self impose until you are eligible, and then, once you are, you can't delay until after a Conference Championship game. So the timing is very controlled. They might still say we self-imposed for a meaningless bowl (which in our case would be silly b/c we are talking about the ACCCG), but how can the NCAA argue that any bowl is meaningless. I mean it's a little offensive to the whole bowl process, no? Are they going to admit that 2/3s of the bowls are BS, money producing ventures for member institutions?

I do wonder if Canes self imposed bowl bans is, to the NCAA, equal to theirs?

I figure the NCAA wants to a) punish Miami and b) save face. If that is the case I suspect they will argue that Miami only chose to walk away from a bowl ban late in the season as opposed to announcing it early on, before start of the season. The impact is different. They will say announcing early would have sent a clearer message and, more importantly, they missed only a low level bowl opportunity in 2011.

I think the U can fight back on that premise by looking at 2012 where the U walked away from a Conference Championship game and a potential Orange Bowl bid. The haters will say Miami wasn't going to win vs FSU anyway but that is nonsensical argument; that's why they play the game!

Bottom line is that NCAA is going to undersell impact of self imposed penalties. I assume in turn the U can show lost revenue as a result of their actions as well as players who missed an opportunity.

Does that lead to settlement or litigation?

Correct. A self-imposed bowl ban would be pretty meaningless if you're not bowl eligible. On the other hand, if the ncaa imposes a bowl ban, and you don't win enough to be bowl eligible, tough **** for the ncaa.

 

[Bigtip]

we aint gettin another bowl ban. period.

very light scholly losses are a possibility. IF the university thinks they are being screwed by the COI's decision, there will be a lawsuit and the penalties handed down will be put on an indefinite hold until the lawsuit is settled

basically the NCAA can walk away with time served or they can choose to take this **** to court where we will win

 

[bg534]

USC dropped $300,000 in Reggie Bush's lap. OSU players sold team equipment and team awards for "tattoo's" to a known drug dealer and money launderer while driving in "leased" cars.

Untrue. These are the same kinds of fabrications and distortions of truth based on rumor, anecdote, or weak sources that the NCAA, their lackeys, and unscrupulous members of the media reported as fact in our case, and wish for us to believe in order for them to justify their purpose or build their career.

We hate these programs, and we are therefore willing to believe anything about them. It's the same principle the NCAA counts on against us. And I'm not saying any one of these programs is innocent, rather that their violations are largely exaggerated, and after they have been exaggerated fabrications surrounding the cases are created, due to the total lack of journalistic integrity in sports reporting today, particularly as it pertains to college athletics.

 

[Kn[]_[]ckles3o5]

USC dropped $300,000 in Reggie Bush's lap. OSU players sold team equipment and team awards for "tattoo's" to a known drug dealer and money launderer while driving in "leased" cars.

Untrue. These are the same kinds of fabrications and distortions of truth based on rumor, anecdote, or weak sources that the NCAA, their lackeys, and unscrupulous members of the media reported as fact in our case, and wish for us to believe in order for them to justify their purpose or build their career.

We hate these programs, and we are therefore willing to believe anything about them. It's the same principle the NCAA counts on against us. And I'm not saying any one of these programs is innocent, rather that their violations are largely exaggerated, and after they have been exaggerated fabrications surrounding the cases are created, due to the total lack of journalistic integrity in sports reporting today, particularly as it pertains to college athletics.

USC
• The Charges: Documents and numerous sources have connected Bush to at least $100,000 in improper benefits from competing camps attempting to woo one of the nation's biggest stars as a client during his sophomore and junior seasons in 2004-05. Between marketing pro Mike Ornstein (a former NFL staffer once convicted for attempting to defraud the league) and fledgling partners Michael Michaels and Lloyd Lake (another ex-con), Bush was reportedly funneled airfare, limo rides, clothes, expensive hotel stays, $13,000 to buy a Chevrolet Impala and weekly payments of at least $1,500. There was also the infamous 3,000-square-foot home in Spring Valley, Calif., purchased by Michaels, where Bush's mother and stepfather allegedly lived for a year, amounting to about $54,000 in free rent they promised to repay when Bush turned pro. Sorry it was only $100,000 the NCAA felt they could prove to a single Heisman trophy winning player


OSU
Ohio State's transgressions ran deeper than USC's, dating to November 2008 and involving 14 players the NCAA said accepted more than $16,000 in illicit benefits. The case revolved around former quarterback Terrelle Pryor and several others who got cash and free or discounted services from the owner of a local tattoo parlor.

Tressel kept superiors in the dark about his knowledge of the violations for nine months, allowing them to play the 2010 season despite being technically ineligible. He was forced to resign in late May. The case then widened as nine players were found to have taken cash from a booster or been overpaid by him in their summer jobs.




I been drinkin and this is just a cursory google on the allegations and not transcripts from the case. I'm not absolving Miami from their wrongdoing just trying to back up the idea that OSU and USC were alleged more egregious offenses than Miami. The bulk of this investigation centers around Shapiro giving Wilfork and Rolle money to join his sports agency, less money combined than Reggie received on his own, rather than pay for play and benefits for helping Miami win. $56,000 to players and recruits is significant but, there hasn't been a whole lot of specifics released about that money. Here's some math take that 56,000 spread it over 8 years and you get 7,000/yr divide that by 10 players and you get +/-700 bucks a player.


I don't see how the NCAA can justify harsher sanctions for lesser crimes committed further in the past. My initial observations may have been hyperbole but the fact still remains that our allegations are less severe than USC and OSU

 

[CANE1775]

I know we focus on the money, but the thing that worries me most about the investigation is the alleged length of time that Shapiro was around the program and how he dealt with coaches and other officials. I know we gloss over it at times because the coaches are no longer here, but from an outsiders view it just looks really really bad when you have coaches AND atheltic department personnel knowing what's up with this guy yet nothing was done. I mean, think back to the alleged story of how Shapiro went off on our director of compliance in the press box during the 48-0 UVA *** whipping and how later an employee from the athletic department told him that the director of compliance had conducted a background check and was alarmed that Shapiro was a part of a sports agency. Allegedly, the employee also told Shapiro not to worry though because things wouldn't go any further.

I mean sure, we're not specifically talking about huge amounts of money in this example, but if it did go down like that and we didn't disassociate ourselves from him, then that just looks flat out terrible. It looks as if people on a variety of levels knew about him yet did nothing, especially when you factor in that even after this event when we should have told him in an official statement to kick rocks, we instead have freakin coaches using him to help recruit high school kids in the following year's class. I can easily see the NCAA( who doesn't like UM anyway) trying to add a third year to our bowl ban. In fact, I expect them to. I'm not saying that we deserve it, but with the way the NCAA has handled everything up to this point, I just don't see anything other than an attempted ***** job coming our way. And fwiw, I'm not a member of the group that somehow believes the COI is going to give us the benefit of the doubt. They are all in cahoots in my opinion.

 

[Insanecane]

If Miami doesn't like the penalties they should sue, and carry on as if nothing is happening. All the penalties are frozen anyway for 2-3 years or so, and the likely hood of the NCAA winning such case is slim. In fact you could use it as a recruiting tool. "We are not afraid to stand up to the NCAA when we feel we are being treated unfairly, and we will do the same for our players." us against the world mentality. kids love that ****.

 

[canesglory]

I do wonder if Canes self imposed bowl bans is, to the NCAA, equal to theirs?

I figure the NCAA wants to a) punish Miami and b) save face. If that is the case I suspect they will argue that Miami only chose to walk away from a bowl ban late in the season as opposed to announcing it early on, before start of the season. The impact is different. They will say announcing early would have sent a clearer message and, more importantly, they missed only a low level bowl opportunity in 2011.

A bowl ban is a bowl ban regardless of when u do it and what bowl it is imo. Why would the Ncaa want to talk down a pre-new years day bowl? It still has sponsors and rakes in $

 

[LA'Cane818]

I feel like we should sue anyway, just out of principle. There is already precedent set for the NCAA having malicious intent in the McNair case. Any lawyer worth their salt should be able that the NCAA has a malicious intent to inflict financial loss upon UM. We can go after them for lost bowl revenue I would guess. I am no lawyer, but I would have to think that this is not what the NCAA would want, they would be forced to disclose all kinds of dirt from the UM investigation they don't want to. Regardless if they let us off going forward or not, I want to know exactly to what extent they had a hard on for us.

 

[bg534]

USC dropped $300,000 in Reggie Bush's lap. OSU players sold team equipment and team awards for "tattoo's" to a known drug dealer and money launderer while driving in "leased" cars.

Untrue. These are the same kinds of fabrications and distortions of truth based on rumor, anecdote, or weak sources that the NCAA, their lackeys, and unscrupulous members of the media reported as fact in our case, and wish for us to believe in order for them to justify their purpose or build their career.

We hate these programs, and we are therefore willing to believe anything about them. It's the same principle the NCAA counts on against us. And I'm not saying any one of these programs is innocent, rather that their violations are largely exaggerated, and after they have been exaggerated fabrications surrounding the cases are created, due to the total lack of journalistic integrity in sports reporting today, particularly as it pertains to college athletics.

USC
• The Charges: Documents and numerous sources have connected Bush to at least $100,000 in improper benefits from competing camps attempting to woo one of the nation's biggest stars as a client during his sophomore and junior seasons in 2004-05. Between marketing pro Mike Ornstein (a former NFL staffer once convicted for attempting to defraud the league) and fledgling partners Michael Michaels and Lloyd Lake (another ex-con), Bush was reportedly funneled airfare, limo rides, clothes, expensive hotel stays, $13,000 to buy a Chevrolet Impala and weekly payments of at least $1,500. There was also the infamous 3,000-square-foot home in Spring Valley, Calif., purchased by Michaels, where Bush's mother and stepfather allegedly lived for a year, amounting to about $54,000 in free rent they promised to repay when Bush turned pro. Sorry it was only $100,000 the NCAA felt they could prove to a single Heisman trophy winning player


OSU
Ohio State's transgressions ran deeper than USC's, dating to November 2008 and involving 14 players the NCAA said accepted more than $16,000 in illicit benefits. The case revolved around former quarterback Terrelle Pryor and several others who got cash and free or discounted services from the owner of a local tattoo parlor.

Tressel kept superiors in the dark about his knowledge of the violations for nine months, allowing them to play the 2010 season despite being technically ineligible. He was forced to resign in late May. The case then widened as nine players were found to have taken cash from a booster or been overpaid by him in their summer jobs.




I been drinkin and this is just a cursory google on the allegations and not transcripts from the case. I'm not absolving Miami from their wrongdoing just trying to back up the idea that OSU and USC were alleged more egregious offenses than Miami. The bulk of this investigation centers around Shapiro giving Wilfork and Rolle money to join his sports agency, less money combined than Reggie received on his own, rather than pay for play and benefits for helping Miami win. $56,000 to players and recruits is significant but, there hasn't been a whole lot of specifics released about that money. Here's some math take that 56,000 spread it over 8 years and you get 7,000/yr divide that by 10 players and you get +/-700 bucks a player.


I don't see how the NCAA can justify harsher sanctions for lesser crimes committed further in the past. My initial observations may have been hyperbole but the fact still remains that our allegations are less severe than USC and OSU

I'm not so much comparing the nature of the violations of those two teams and Miami, as much as I'm pointing out that, in both of the above mentioned quotes regarding the nature of the violations, the NCAA is basically citing itself, and has very little evidence of serious or egregious wrongdoing by any of the aforementioned teams. They put rumor out there as fact, and penalize based on it.

None of the three teams is likely innocent, and Ohio State likely received penalties most closely in line with their violations, but none of them are nearly as egregious as the NCAA purports them to be.

 

[bear]

We are forgetting our biggest asset in this case! Donna shalala. The whole world knows how much we have been screwed over already by the NCAA! We shall not make our decisions out of fear because if there were ever a time to fight the NCAA this is the time and it will not be a 3-4 year case! Shalala is much too bright to pick a fight in public unless she knows she can win it! As for le *******- I actually think he is a pretty funny dude.