whobethis16
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 6,325
- Likes
- 3,221
Hate to tell you this but every single one of these "allegations" were fully rebutted in the appeal brief. You folks seem to think this is coming from high heaven. Trust me, the NCAA is not high heaven. They are the most corrupt organization controlling any sport and rake in billions of dollars in the process. That is why they are willing to take this gamble. Gotta tell you, instead of a coach who just takes their justice and show causes without a whimper, they have one who cares about what his family and the rest of the world thinks of him. Someone in the NCAA should be tarred and feathered over this and it is the lovely lady who chaired the infractions hearing. She is as corrupt as they make them.
Want an example? How about the one you have highlighted?
A history of Level I, Level II or major violations;
The NCAA also cites the following aggravating factor: history of Level I, Level II or major violations. However, Tyndalls previous violations are substantially different from the violations in this case. Thus, Tyndalls previous violations should not be considered as a factor or, in the alternative, minimal weight should have been placed on these two factors. The COI did not impose a show cause penalty or suspension on Tyndall at Morehead. Also, in that case, Tyndall did not violate the unethical conduct legislation. There is a substantial likelihood that such violations would never have occurred at a university with a adequate compliance staff at the time. Accordingly, Tyndalls previous violations are irrelevant to this case and should not be considered.
Oh bull****. He has had multiple issues at multiple schools making him a repeat offender. It doesn't matter if he broke rule #34 and then #93. They're both violations.
He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time, so he gets a stronger punishment the next. That's the way it works in life.