NCAA investigation status

#77
#77
Not sure I understand the scholarship reductions. On its face, it could be interpreted that a reduction of 28 scholarships would mean 28 per year every year for the next 5 years. That would mean we'd be down to 57 maximum scholarships per season - ignoring any credit we receive for past self-imposed reductions.

This is a virtual death knell.

Alternatively, it could be interpreted that it's 28 total scholarship equivalent years over a 5 year period. This would mean a loss of less than 6 per year less any credits over the next 5 years.

Anyone *know* for certain what the scholarship language means?
 
#80
#80
MontyPython said:
Not sure I understand the scholarship reductions. On its face, it could be interpreted that a reduction of 28 scholarships would mean 28 per year. That would mean we'd be down to 57 maximum scholarships per season - ignoring any credit we receive for past self-imposed reductions.

This is a virtual death knell.

Alternatively, it could be interpreted that it's 28 total scholarship equivalent years over a 5 year period.

Anyone *know* for certain what the scholarship language means?
Click to expand...
IMG_9392.jpeg
 
#81
#81
I find the head coach portion interesting. I know the NCAA rule language calls these violations "failure to monitor", apparently even when the staff is following his own instructions.
""
Due to the former head coach's direct involvement in intentionally providing impermissible inducements and benefits to prospects, student-athletes and their families, he violated head coach responsibility rules. Additionally, he failed to monitor his staff when at least a dozen members of the football staff committed more than 200 violations of NCAA rules over a two-year period and did not self-report any of those violations.

"During the head coach's tenure, he and other members of his staff acted with general and blatant disregard for rules compliance," the panel said.

The panel also was troubled by a former staff member who stated that she failed to report violations because she feared retaliation and backlash, which "spotlights the toxic culture that existed under the head coach's leadership."
""
The staff member's statement of fear of retaliation for reporting what was going on should be grounds for Fulmer to not receive any more retirement payments.
I am tired of him being protected and defended in this matter.
I find that more of an indictment of Fulmer than anyone else at the university. She did not consider him someone that would do the right thing.

We have long debated his role in this crap, and that final statement in the Head Coach section of the NCAA Infractions overview makes clear Fulmer was complicit by having zero authority to manage the department, or was complicit by direct actions and enabling by protecting the Coaching Staff's violating schemes.
Either way, employees had no faith they could trust Fulmer, (--edit)or do their jobs to protect the university.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie, DaddyChad, DooleyOrangePants and 3 others
#83
#83
Money.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, VolTookie, Smokey X and 3 others
#86
#86
SpookyAction said:
I find the head coach portion interesting. I know the NCAA rule language calls these violations "failure to monitor", apparently even when the staff is following his own instructions.
""
Due to the former head coach's direct involvement in intentionally providing impermissible inducements and benefits to prospects, student-athletes and their families, he violated head coach responsibility rules. Additionally, he failed to monitor his staff when at least a dozen members of the football staff committed more than 200 violations of NCAA rules over a two-year period and did not self-report any of those violations.

"During the head coach's tenure, he and other members of his staff acted with general and blatant disregard for rules compliance," the panel said.

The panel also was troubled by a former staff member who stated that she failed to report violations because she feared retaliation and backlash, which "spotlights the toxic culture that existed under the head coach's leadership."
""
The staff member's statement of fear of retaliation for reporting what was going on should be grounds for Fulmer to not receive any more retirement payments.
I am tired of him being protected and defended in this matter.
I find that more of an indictment of Fulmer than anyone else at the university. She did not consider him someone that would do the right thing.

We have long debated his role in this crap, and that final statement in the Head Coach section of the NCAA Infractions overview makes clear Fulmer was complicit by having zero authority to manage the department, or was complicit by direct actions and enabling by protecting the Coaching Staff's violating schemes.
Either way, employees had no faith they could trust Fulmer.
Click to expand...
Agree. I think UT took a hit here because of the way they handled Fulmer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie, DooleyOrangePants and SpookyAction
#91
#91
I read that we are credited the 16 we already reduced the past two years. So do we just have 12 to go over 5 years, or is it an additional 28?
 
#92
#92
It’s all BS. so we are punished for what NIL has become. Cornbread learned his trade from saban. You don’t see bama being penalized
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#95
#95
onevol74 said:
Other coaches will say that the scholarship limitations will prohibit UT from developing good teams for the next 5 years.
Click to expand...
Very true, but this is how last season's record reinforces our coaches' recruiting pitch against that accusation. No season going forward will have a roster as limited as last season's roster.

Last season's success was a godsend toward insulating our recruiters against the handicaps they have faced the past two years. I believe these punishments are a vindication of the university and a huge boost to our present coaching staff.
"Look what we did with a reduction of 5 scholarships, and we have only 2 scholarship reductions during the next four years."
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and onevol74
#98
#98
SpringBokVol said:
This is a fantastic outcome.

This is put to bed. Move on. No lasting impact at all.
Click to expand...

Agree. The rest can be navigated around. If this had been in the 80's or 90's we would have been looking at a bowl ban, possible TV ban or even worse. The dreaded death penalty. So it definitely could have been much worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction and will-you-shut-up-man
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top