Missouri hit with sanctions after academic fraud

#33
#33
05_never_again said:
Roy is full of s**t. He knows damn well they did wrong but got off on a technicality.

The athletes were pushed into those classes, no question. However, since they were open to any student, it was difficult for the NCAA to prove that those classes were created for the express purpose of helping athletes cheat. UNC athletics' defense was actually pretty easy, just say "No no no, we weren't cheating, anybody could take those classes, and we didn't know they were a sham."

When a tutor takes a test for an athlete or a booster pays a player, even if the admin or a coach didn't know it was going on, it falls under NCAA jurisdiction because the cheating was done specifically for athletics.

The "moral" of the story is that if you're going to cheat, do it big, and do it in a way where it appears that not just the athletes were cheating. Mizzou and other schools got busted because they cheated in a way that made it very obvious it was being done to benefit athletes.
Click to expand...


The NCAA hit Georgia with sanctions when they offered a 1 hr credit course (taught by Jim Harrick) "Coaching Strategies of Basketball" a class which 3 basketball players took + about 100 regular students. NCAA denied Georgia's appeal on that very argument. Note: I am not defending Mizzou but I will continue to believe that there is NO legitimate defense of UNC's actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1
#35
#35
VolsFan-TX said:
I understand what you are saying, but the athletes were allowed to compete and remained eligible based upon their work in the sham classes. I still don't see how UNC was able to get out of that one. I would like to see MO push back on the punishment based upon the precedent set by UNC investigation.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but the most important part of the whole thing is that the sham classes were open to everybody. In order for the NCAA to bring the hammer down on them, they would have needed to prove that the sham classes were "solely created, offered, and maintained as a orchestrated effort to benefit student-athletes" (Greg Sankey's words). A tutor being directed to take tests for athletes or a booster paying a player is pretty obviously created, offered, and maintained as an orchestrated effort to benefit student-athletes. It isn't open to everyone.

UNC got off on a technicality, a loophole. If you offer it to everybody, not just athletes, the NCAA can't really do anything. I would venture a guess that if UNC had tutors orchestrate a massive cheating effort that benefited both athletes and regular students, and the NCAA couldn't show it was actually created for the express purpose of helping athletes, they also would have gotten away with it.
 
#36
#36
I don't know how many recruits have Tennessee and Mizzou in their top schools, but could this help us along the recruiting trail? Their recruiting is going to be terrible as a result of the punishment. Could we see an uptick in quality or quantity of recruits as a part of the fall out from this? I ask because I am not as well informed on the intricacies of recruiting as many on this page.
 
#39
#39
8104488.gif
 
#40
#40
OldandStillaVol said:
The NCAA hit Georgia with sanctions when they offered a 1 hr credit course (taught by Jim Harrick) "Coaching Strategies of Basketball" a class which 3 basketball players took + about 100 regular students. NCAA denied Georgia's appeal on that very argument. Note: I am not defending Mizzou but I will continue to believe that there is NO legitimate defense of UNC's actions.
Click to expand...
Was the NCAA able to dig up some kind of evidence the class was created for the express purpose of benefiting athletes? Since the basketball coach himself taught that class, perhaps so. It's kind of obvious at that point.

It isn't necessarily the ratio of athletes to non-athletes that determines why the class was created. If the NCAA was able to prove that a class was created for the express purpose of benefiting athletes, and 5 athletes took it and 500 regular students did, the NCAA could still come in and nail them.

BTW, I'm not saying all of this because I believe UNC did nothing wrong. I'm just trying to explain the technicality they got off on. I think it is patently obvious they intentionally set up a system to cheat.

The real question is say another school, Wyoming, was doing the exact same thing UNC did. Does the NCAA give them any benefit of the doubt? Let them off on a technicality? I bet not.
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
Special Ed said:
It's more about the inequity of the punishment doled out by the corrupt minions of the governing body.
Click to expand...

This

When you watch the 30 for 30 “Pony Excess”, there is no doubt that SMU was beyond guilty.

However, so was everyone else in the SWC and they got nailed because they were SMU not Texas.

The 30 for 30 on Marcus Dupree couldn’t be more clear about what Oklahoma and Texas were all about in those days.

I’m convinced now that Florida got nailed in the 80’s simply because they weren’t “Florida” yet. If they did the same stuff today, they’d get a slap on the wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera, davethevol, Paper_Towel and 3 others
#44
#44
05_never_again said:
BTW, I'm not saying all of this because I believe UNC did nothing wrong. I'm just trying to explain the technicality they got off on. I think it is patently obvious they intentionally set up a system to cheat.
Click to expand...

Understood. My position is that the NCAA caved. I think they should have issued sanction against UNC and fought them in court for however long it would take. If UNC wins in court, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#45
#45
OldandStillaVol said:
Understood. My position is that the NCAA caved. I think they should have issued sanction against UNC and fought them in court for however long it would take. If UNC wins in court, so be it.
Click to expand...
True. That's what would have happened if it occurred at a lesser school, IMO. I edited my post above after you replied but if, say, Wyoming did this same thing, I bet the NCAA gives no benefit of the doubt and lays the hammer anyway, even if they didn't have jurisdiction, and they'd fight it out for years in court with Wyoming. Since it's UNC, they get that benefit of the doubt. UNC would also have big time resources to defend themselves as you mentioned, Wyoming would not.
 
#46
#46
I had not even heard that they were being investigated for widespread academic fraud... but it's definitely time to check for parallels with Chapel Hill.
 
#48
#48
Looking up the sports involved, I doubt this will have an impact on their football or baseball. Their football goes back and forth between good, bad, and mostly mediocre. Their baseball hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since 2012.

What will really be damaging is their women's softball program. They've been a consistent presence in the womens NCAA tournament for over a decade, and have won at least one or two games each year. This could be devastating for that particular sport.
 
#50
#50
TNfan#2 said:
Looking up the sports involved, I doubt this will have an impact on their football or baseball. Their football goes back and forth between good, bad, and mostly mediocre. Their baseball hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since 2012.

What will really be damaging is their women's softball program. They've been a consistent presence in the womens NCAA tournament for over a decade, and have won at least one or two games each year. This could be devastating for that particular sport.
Click to expand...
A postseason ban, 5% scholarship reduction, 7-week ban on official visits/recruiting communications/off-campus recruiting evaluation, and a 12.5% reduction in official visits actually seems kind of stiff for this. As you said, Mizzou football is inconsistent to begin with, and an inconsistent program will have a tougher time with something like this than a consistent one. And if Kelly Bryant leaves, it really hurts them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top