forums

UCF Sanctions..

By not pleasant, do you mean for your reputation, credibility, reliability, mental capacity, etc. Mr. Robinson? I am SO upset that he has my last name!
 
Advertisement
So the 'dreaded' LOIC only gets you a bowl ban and 15 schollies? Can someone remind me why USC got double that?
 
mirvin88 said:
JerseyCanes said:
Five years probation, 1 yr postseason ban, 3 yr show cause for former AD, reduction of five scholarships for three yrs for football for UCF.

Ain't ****...

JC
Click to expand...

Hurtt, prepare thy ****
Click to expand...

"3 yr show cause for former AD". What does that actually translate to in terms of the AD's punishment? Is it probationary? Out of a job for three years? Not really understanding the terminolgy of "Show Cause".
 
Advertisement
mirvin88 said:
CanesAreAble said:
valid said:
So the 'dreaded' LOIC only gets you a bowl ban and 15 schollies? Can someone remind me why USC got double that?
Click to expand...


The main reason they got hammered was because they had ****** compliance.
Click to expand...

the UCF AD didn't even know what the rules were...USC must've had literally nobody running it
Click to expand...


Yep.

I don't know if it's true, but people are saying SC basically had a one-man compliance department.
 
Port Knox said:
mirvin88 said:
JerseyCanes said:
Five years probation, 1 yr postseason ban, 3 yr show cause for former AD, reduction of five scholarships for three yrs for football for UCF.

Ain't ****...

JC
Click to expand...

Hurtt, prepare thy ****
Click to expand...

"3 yr show cause for former AD". What does that actually translate to in terms of the AD's punishment? Is it probationary? Out of a job for three years? Not really understanding the terminolgy of "Show Cause".
Click to expand...


From what I understand, the sanctions imposed follow that AD around for 3 years, and if another school wants to hire him without getting those sanctions levied, they have to "show cause" as to why they shouldn't get hit.

So basically dude is out of work for 3 years.
 
Port Knox said:
mirvin88 said:
JerseyCanes said:
Five years probation, 1 yr postseason ban, 3 yr show cause for former AD, reduction of five scholarships for three yrs for football for UCF.

Ain't ****...

JC
Click to expand...

Hurtt, prepare thy ****
Click to expand...

"3 yr show cause for former AD". What does that actually translate to in terms of the AD's punishment? Is it probationary? Out of a job for three years? Not really understanding the terminolgy of "Show Cause".
Click to expand...

It means he can't Work in College athletics for 3 years.. Like Tressel who got a 5 year show cause.

Pretty much Hurtt and Holcutt are about to get Sanduskyied...
JC
 
Advertisement
“A head coach is not required to investigate wrongdoing, but is expected to recognize potential NCAA violations, address them and report them to the athletics administration.” lets hope Randy spoke to reid.-- Knox a show cause means if person X is the one you want to hire then, post-interview he goes in front of an ncaa panel to be cleared
 
CanesAreAble said:
mirvin88 said:
CanesAreAble said:
valid said:
So the 'dreaded' LOIC only gets you a bowl ban and 15 schollies? Can someone remind me why USC got double that?
Click to expand...


The main reason they got hammered was because they had ****ty compliance.
Click to expand...

the UCF AD didn't even know what the rules were...USC must've had literally nobody running it
Click to expand...


Yep.

I don't know if it's true, but people are saying SC basically had a one-man compliance department.
Click to expand...

"People" aren't saying it. The NCAA said it in the COI's report. USC had a 2 person compliance dept., but it was only one person for a couple of months. USC has a bigger athletics program than UM, and UM has 5 (if I remember right) full time employees in compliance. That's why USC "should have known" of the violations. Its rinky-dink compliance office received info that would have uncovered violations, but it never followed up. USC fans want to act like Paul Dee invented the "should have known" standard. Nope. It's a basic standard for negligence.
 
The positive in all is the NCAA is really starting to punish the Coaches... Some would say more harshly then the programs with multiple years of show cause.

I hope thats the case with Miami.

JC
 
canesstevealum08 said:
“A head coach is not required to investigate wrongdoing, but is expected to recognize potential NCAA violations, address them and report them to the athletics administration.” lets hope Randy spoke to reid.-- Knox a show cause means if person X is the one you want to hire then, post-interview he goes in front of an ncaa panel to be cleared
Click to expand...

it's pretty well known that Shannon spoke out about Shapiro being shady
 
Advertisement
DapperSlapper said:
CanesAreAble said:
mirvin88 said:
CanesAreAble said:
valid said:
So the 'dreaded' LOIC only gets you a bowl ban and 15 schollies? Can someone remind me why USC got double that?
Click to expand...


The main reason they got hammered was because they had ****ty compliance.
Click to expand...

the UCF AD didn't even know what the rules were...USC must've had literally nobody running it
Click to expand...


Yep.

I don't know if it's true, but people are saying SC basically had a one-man compliance department.
Click to expand...

"People" aren't saying it. The NCAA said it in the COI's report. USC had a 2 person compliance dept., but it was only one person for a couple of months. USC has a bigger athletics program than UM, and UM has 5 (if I remember right) full time employees in compliance. That's why USC "should have known" of the violations. Its rinky-dink compliance office received info that would have uncovered violations, but it never followed up. USC fans want to act like Paul Dee invented the "should have known" standard. Nope. It's a basic standard for negligence.
Click to expand...


Awesome. I didn't know the NCAA said that.
 
My thoughts, exactly, Jersey. This is good for us!

JerseyCanes said:
"The former director of athletics and the former assistant football coach engaged in unethical activity, according to the committee’s findings. Both individuals knowingly provided false and misleading information during interviews with UCF compliance and NCAA enforcement staff. Further, the former director of athletics failed to take steps to prevent the involvement of boosters in recruiting activities, and on at least one occasion, he became involved in a violation as a result of the representatives’ activity. The former director of athletics claimed that he was not aware of recruiting rules and thus did not know he was engaging in impermissible activity. The committee noted, “As the leader of the athletics department, it is incumbent upon the director of athletics to know basic rules governing the Association."

Mr Holcutt.. you are done!!

JC
Click to expand...
 
Advertisement
With our Cooperation...
Suspending Players and paying back money
Taking a Self imposed Bowl ban
Turnover of Staffs AND Athletic Director
Having on of the BEST compliance Dept.in the country
Having a Reputable coach and President in Charge

Can't see use getting more than 1 more bowl ban with no more than 20 Schollys over 4 years... The max.

We skate.. LOL

JC
 
I played briefly for UCF and graduated from there..... UCF is not known for hiring the brightest of people. Former AD Steve Orsini and Keith Tribble are high on that list.

Fun Fact of the Day: Keith Tribble played football for the gayturds
 
47.gif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top