NCAA investigation status

#107
#107
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...

Great post! Anyone who doesn't hold Fulmer reliable is just crazy. Fulmer did the same stuff Pruitt did, he just had more juice and knew how to hide it. Pruitt and his staff were idiots that didn't care. Also if what LWSVOL said was true about Fulmer wanting Mel Tucker but got overruled by a booster, then that a$$bag is just as responsible. But ultimately Fulmer hired Pruitt and that's on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie, Megatron88, DooleyOrangePants and 2 others
#108
#108
bamawriter said:
This is not hammered. If this was 20 years ago, UT would be looking at 2 years of post-season ban, minimum. UT already has the worst of these sanctions behind them.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I just posted the same thing. If this happened in the 80s or 90s we may have been close to the death penalty. At the very least bowl and TV bans. We can manage 12 more scholly's over the next 5 yrs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction and bamawriter
#115
#115
Given this was the Bammer we were dealt with we came out better than what we should have expected in hindsight
1689350765349.jpeg
 
#119
#119
BowlBrother85 said:
28 lost scholarships spread over 5 years is tough but manageable. Heupel can't afford many busts.
Click to expand...
Not going to be 28. NCAA is crediting 16 scholarships that UT held back as a self-imposed penalty. It will only be 2-3 scholarships per year over the five year period. Roster will drop from 85 scholarships max to 82 or 83 max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#121
#121
Does the 28 scholarship reductions number include the 16 we already self-imposed, or not? The ESPN article I saw said we were “credited” for those.
 
#122
#122
SpringBokVol said:
The scholarship reduction is only a total of 10 left.

Total reduction: 28
Already reduced: 16
Reduced by the end of this year: 2
Remaining: 10

This will be done by reducing 2 for the next 5 years.

It's nothing.
Click to expand...
This! It's not bad at all. We win considering how much stuff Pruitt and staff got hammered with. Definitely a win!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpringBokVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top