forums

UNC sanctions: One bowl ban, 15 schollies, Blake show cause

Bigtip said:
I would not be happy with 15 lost.
Click to expand...

If thats the worst it is, 5 a year for 3 years, that ain't ****. I'll be satisfied(not happy) if that is all it is, especially considering how bad everyone thought it was when the story initially broke. I don't see much of a difference between 3 a year or 5 a year.....especially when USC got 10 a year for 3 years. I just hope the NCAA doesn't wait till after the season to announce sanctions. I think we can all agree that starting punishment sooner is better no matter what the sanctions end up being.
 
Advertisement
5 a year is not crippling but it aint nothing. it is like losing one small recruiting class over that period
 
Here is my uneducated guess..

A. 8-10 Schollys/2 years and 1 year ban

or

B. 12-15 Schollys/ 3 years and no ban

Don't know which is better but I'll be surprised if we recieved more than what UNC got.

JC
 
Advertisement
for what ever reason i think we get one more bowl ban...and more schollies than unc.maybe 6 a year.

their (ncaa) are going to try to ***** us......time to try to cut some dead weight...and load up on LINEMAN(OL/DL) as when the schollie reductions hit those will be the hardest to fill with walkons, etc....we can fill in with some walk ons at skill spots and JUCOS.
 
I don't understand why we would get another bowl ban if the player's involved have already been punished by the NCAA themselves.

$$ amount has been paid back and is nothing like what was first reported. What did the number end up being less than $5000? BFD

NCAA can't prove anything happened in the past (past players) because Donna made that deal with them and they didn't interview former players.

Dee was a former colleague to the NCAA and I doubt they will do anything to embarrass him because those things alledgedly happened on his watch.

Shalala is a master politician with friends in high places. She knew how to play the game, knew which route to take in order to get out of this cleanly and quickly. She and UM cooperated fully and I think she made a case for the NCAA to go relatively easy on us.

We already self-imposed a bowl ban which is significant IMO

I think we get what OSU (minus the bowl ban) and Boise got. No more no less.
 
Advertisement
If we can sacrifice another bowl instead of scholarships, that's the best option. The hardest part of a bowl ban is what it does to recruiting, but losing a 2012 bowl won't really hurt recruiting since the 2012 class is already signed. We can still tell the Jan enrollees and the 2013 class that the bowl losses are behind us, it won't affect them, and we didn't lose too many 'ships.

I'd give up the bowl to save 5 'ships in a heartbeat.
 
If we lose 5 a year over three years I think the NCAA will be hard-pressed to get another university to cooperate with them in the future. At some point UM needs to be thrown a bone for offering full cooperation.
 
Advertisement
Devil is in the details. They really didn't get a lot. And, read how the NCAA judged their infractions. Considering the huge lack of evidence on allegations prior to the current players we suspended, this bodes well for us.



Britton Banowsky and Gregory Sankey of the Committee on Infractions held a nearly 27-minute teleconference with reporters to discuss the findings and penalties of the North Carolina football program. Here's a roundup of what was said on the call:
  • The committee repeatedly praised North Carolina for its job with the investigation.
  • The NCAA was not going to impose a blanket duty on members to monitor social-networking websites, citing issues regarding privacy and where to strike a balance. If information was available and came to the attention of the school, that's one thing, but to expect every school to monitor all the social-networking sites of all of its student-athletes would be too much.
  • The committee dealt with the particular circumstances of this case as it pertains to agents and was not looking to draw upon past cases.
  • The postseason ban does include the ACC title game, in the event the Tar Heels win the Coastal Division. Also, the scholarship reduction is adding six to the already self-imposed total of nine over the next three years.
  • The committee said John Blake's three-year "show cause" is not out of the ordinary and stressed to read the particulars of his penalty when comparing to other cases. Blake is prohibited from any recruiting activity


NCAA is gonna deal with just the cedible evidence they have on us. They've already said they cannot use any press articles as evidence. They have to get stuff first hand from people involved. UM has opened up, Shaprio hasn't.

They imposed 6 Schollies on top of their 9 for the total of 15. We haven't reduced any, and the evidence thus far shows chumpchange in benefits for our guys compared to USC and Ohio St. I'd be shocked if we get more than 9 schollies reduced.

I would honestly not expect (unless new evidence turns up) for us to get worse than what UNC just got, considering the evidence they have to work with is way different than what Yahoo reported.
 
Stacey Osburn
Associate Director of Public and Media Relations
317/917-6117

[h=4]Latest News[/h]Publish date: Mar 12, 2012
[h=2]UNC receives postseason ban, scholarship reductions[/h]University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is responsible for multiple violations, including academic fraud, impermissible agent benefits, ineligible participation and a failure to monitor its football program, according to the decision announced today by the Division I Committee on Infractions.
Over the course of three seasons, six football student-athletes competed while ineligible as a result of these violations, and multiple student-athletes received impermissible benefits totaling more than $31,000.
[h=3]Public Infractions Report[/h]Read the Public Infractions Reporthere.

While employed by the university, a former assistant football coach was compensated by a sports agent for the access he provided to student-athletes and failed to disclose the income to the university. The former assistant coach and a former tutor both committed unethical conduct and failed to cooperate with the investigation.
“This case should serve as a cautionary tale to all institutions to vigilantly monitor the activities of those student-athletes who possess the potential to be top professional prospects,” the committee stated in its report. “It should also serve to warn student-athletes that if they choose to accept benefits from agents or their associates, they risk losing their eligibility for collegiate competition.”
Penalties for the case include a one-year postseason ban, reduction of 15 football scholarships, vacation of records and three years probation. The former assistant coach received a three-year show-cause penalty restricting any recruiting activity.
The academic fraud violations stemmed from the former tutor constructing significant parts of writing assignments for three football student-athletes. The tutor wrote paragraphs for papers, revised drafts, composed “works-cited” pages, researched and edited content and inserted citations, among other violations. The tutor also provided more than $4,000 in impermissible benefits, including airfare and paying for outstanding parking tickets, to 11 football student-athletes after she graduated and was no longer a university employee. The tutor also refused to cooperate with the investigation.
The former assistant football coach was also cited for a failure to cooperate and unethical conduct. According to the committee, not only did he refuse to provide information relevant to the investigation, but he also furnished false and misleading information. At the hearing, in a reversal of his previous refusal to provide information, the former assistant coach expressed a willingness to provide the pertinent records. However, he did not provide the documents for more than three months following the hearing, resulting in a significant delay in bringing this case to conclusion.
The former assistant coach also did not report $31,000 in athletically related outside income from a sports agency. According to the committee findings, the former assistant coach was either employed or compensated by the sports agent. It was found that even after returning to college athletics, the former assistant coach continued recruiting clients for the sports agency, including student-athletes he was coaching.
The committee also found the university failed to monitor its football program, in part when it allowed a former student-athlete to have regular access to current student-athletes at its athletic facilities without any scrutiny. The former student-athlete was deemed an agent runner during the NCAA investigation. In addition, the university failed to investigate information it obtained suggesting one student-athlete, who accepted the most in impermissible cash and benefits, may have violated NCAA agent rules.
This case also included the provision of thousands of dollars in impermissible benefits to multiple student-athletes. Seven football student-athletes accepted more than $27,500 in benefits from various individuals, some of whom triggered NCAA agent rules. These impermissible benefits included cash, flights, meals, lodging, athletic training, admission to clubs and jewelry, among others. While the value of the benefits the student-athletes accepted varied, one student-athlete received more than $13,500 cash and gifts.
The university took decisive action after discovering the academic fraud violations and when the former assistant coach’s violations came to light. In addition, the school cooperated fully during the investigation.
The penalties in this case include:

  1. Public reprimand and censure.
  2. Three years of probation from March 12, 2012, through March 11, 2015.
  3. Three-year show-cause penalty for the former assistant football coach prohibiting any recruiting activity. The public report contains further details.
  4. Postseason ban for the 2012 football season.
  5. Reduction of football scholarships by a total of 15 during three academic years. The public report includes further details.
  6. Vacation of wins during the 2008 and 2009 seasons (self-imposed by the university). The public report includes further details.
  7. $50,000 fine (self-imposed by the university).
  8. Disassociation of both the former tutor and former student-athlete who served as an agent runner (self-imposed by the university).
The Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent group comprised of representatives across NCAA membership and the public. The members of the committee who reviewed this case include Britton Banowsky, commissioner of Conference USA and chair of the Committee on Infractions. Other members are John S. Black, attorney; Brian P. Halloran, attorney; Roscoe Howard, Jr., attorney; Andrea Myers, athletics director emeritus, Indiana State University; James O’Fallon, law professor and faculty athletics representative for University of Oregon; Gregory Sankey, associate commissioner of the Southeastern Conference; and Rodney Uphoff, law professor for University of Missouri, Columbia.
 
Advertisement
the plan is to be at 80 schollie kids by the fall........basically managing the roster for sanctions

the issue we are gonna have is this **** with reggie and scott regarding the former coach

between that and the football ****......that could pave the way for LOIC

also......if blake got a show cause.......i cant see how hurtt escapes without one as well.......there are also nunzio and hill.....as well as haith and his staff who could have some issues as well

also when slims dee put the hammer down on usc...........he said "ignorance is no excuse".......so i still expect the bar to be set at what usc got
 
Advertisement
Back
Top