Yahoo Sports lowers the boom on Miami

#402
#402
Well, the other ACC teams could schedule OOC games that would be much more interesting, and would likely be televised. Nobody would watch the Miami games if they were essentially a D-III team, and I don't know what the ACC tv contract looks like, but if I were the television networks, I would try anything to get out of airing the Miami games.
 
#403
#403
Thrasher865 said:
No.... we understand perfectly what the death penalty is and was for SMU. All I was saying, if that was directed in my direction, was that a two year total elimination of scholarships would be the equivalent of the death penalty.

Maybe I exaggerated a smidge, but not much. It would decimate them for well over a decade.
Click to expand...


Gotcha. Im all for them being at the very bottom of the ACC for the next decade because of this. I dont care if they win a game for the next 5 years. And I promise you that I would be saying the same thing if it were Mich State or U of Florida. I love my schools, but this kind of stuff would have me out until it was cleaned up.

PERSONALLY, if it were up to me: I would drop every scholarship for 4 years. I would let them play with walk-ons and make them play a 100% juco schedule.

And I would make them spend the 4 years of scholly money on a new chemistry building or something
 
#404
#404
bamawriter said:
I think it probably should. If there is a situation that merits it more than this one, I would actually be afraid to see it.

The difference between what I'm suggesting and the DP is that it wouldn't cause the collateral damage that the DP inevitably would. Other schools get screwed by a team getting the death penalty or a TV ban, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. If Miami could still play, but with nothing but walk-ons, the damage is isolated to Miami.
Click to expand...

My theory is just a little different than yours. I would make them give up the incoming class. and then give up one class worth of schollys, but distributed amongst the rest of the players. So, players on scholly would have to find new schools. Incoming recruits would have to find new schools. And they would be playing with 2 years of scholly athletes instead of 4 years worth.

eh. Might work. Might not. It would put a huge hit on them, that is for certain.
 
#405
#405
Thrasher865 said:
Well, the other ACC teams could schedule OOC games that would be much more interesting, and would likely be televised. Nobody would watch the Miami games if they were essentially a D-III team, and I don't know what the ACC tv contract looks like, but if I were the television networks, I would try anything to get out of airing the Miami games.
Click to expand...

I promise that the contract says nothing about the quality of any particular program. As long as Miami has football games to televise, the contract is in effect.
 
#406
#406
Thrasher865 said:
Well, the other ACC teams could schedule OOC games that would be much more interesting, and would likely be televised. Nobody would watch the Miami games if they were essentially a D-III team, and I don't know what the ACC tv contract looks like, but if I were the television networks, I would try anything to get out of airing the Miami games.
Click to expand...

The camera men/women would be ordered to shoot tight angle shots only. No wide shots, do not follow the flight of the ball. . . kind of like when the shoot WNBA games.
 
#407
#407
They should give the ACC an opt-out clause, like they do the athletes. Death penalty for UM, they get dropped from the ACC. ACC picks up aTm until the SEC can find the other programs for expansion. Then SEC decides they don't want aTm, so they're stuck in the ACC. Miami gets their **** together as an independent, scheduling progressively stronger schedules as they find athletes to fill their roster. Everybody wins.


Not serious about the scenario, but I still wouldn't opposed the DP.
 
#408
#408
GatorBill said:
The camera men/women would be ordered to shoot tight angle shots only. No wide shots, do not follow the flight of the ball. . . kind of like when the shoot WNBA games.
Click to expand...

What's sad is that watching a Miami team made up of walk-ons get pummeled by everyone they play would still be better than watching the WNBA.
 
#410
#410
lawgator1 said:
The disconnect I see in your reasoning is that, if in 2008 the administration began to "crack down" on relationships between boosters and players, that implies that the administration was aware of at least some problems and did not self-report them.

In my view, the only possible "out" for the U right now as an institution is to try to compartmentalize the damage. And "cracking down" due to these problems makes that issue much worse, not better.

It just seems unfathomable that these boosters would be meeting with all of these kids, hanging out, buying them stuff, giving them cash, hookers, etc., and that it went on for 10 years or so and involved so many players and coaches, and no one in administration knew .... or at least bothered to ask some questions.

That may be the ultimate undoing here a la lack of institutional control. For this to have gone on at these levels means either a blind eye was turned or there never were eyes on the program to begin with.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt any governing body would construe a University implementing stricter guidelines as evidence that "they new something was going on". Not only is that highly speculative, it's completely against the public policy that the NCAA is trying to instill. The fact that the U was trying to tighten their belt, coupled with the fact that these allegations were self-reported by the U over a year ago, may buy some leniency.
 
#412
#412
GatorBill said:
copied and pasted my post from yet another thread on this subject------->and GO:

I dont think that most people understand what the "death penalty" was for SMU.

It was only a 1-1/2 year penalty as it was originally used.

1 year with NO football. (1987 - conditioning only, no pads)
1 year with NO HOME GAMES (1988 - SMU decided to scrap the whole season)

Loss of 55 scholarships over 4 years.

They did not field a full squad until 1992.

also:
Quote:
Since 1989 SMU has defeated only 2 ranked teams, has had only 2 winning seasons, and is 64–158–3.[8] The Mustangs would not return to a bowl game until 2009; they won the 2009 Hawaiʻi Bowl on December 24, 2009 over Nevada by a score of 45–10. The death penalty decimated the Southwest Conference's reputation and finances, contributing to the collapse of the entire conference in 1996.

I got this all from wiki:
Death penalty (NCAA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I cannot believe I am even close to defending the U, but a complete and total death penalty is not a relevant punishment. I think a 4-6 year MAJOR reduction of schollys is a very harsh punishment. The removal of a couple recruiting classes would put this program to it's knees.

Not all of those who are left in the program deserve that, but there are many who do, and that is usually not the case in these situations.
Click to expand...


Where I primarily disagree with you is that SMU was basically the mainstay of the SWC at the time. They really had nothing else going for them on any consistent basis.

Removing Miami from the ACC hurts the ACC, yes, to a small degree. But not nearly like taking SMU out of the SWC-mix did back in the late 80's. The two situations are just not comparable as the ACC has FSU, Va. Tech, Clemson, and others that represent significant revenue generation.

Where I also disagree with you is on the notion of "not punishing those who are there now." The reason is that this argument can almost always be made when it comes to punishing a university or its team for something that occurred more than 2 years or so prior.

It is infrequently the case that a recruiting scandal breaks while its going on. It is usually either years later, or at least at the end of a career.

The problem, particularly in this case, is that these were not isolated incidents occurring outside of the knowledge of the coaches and staff. The coaches and staff facilitated it. If ever there was a case that represented an INSTITUTIONAL problem, this is it. Its the entire atmosphere surrounding that program.

Although I keep saying I am stunned by the depth of it, part of me basically expected something akin to this to happen to UM. Not to this depth, but basically this is what Miami has been "selling" for so long in terms of its football product: We're bad a** and don't give a f*** what you think.

Life imitating art, imo.
 
#413
#413
MemphisCanes said:
The fact that the U was trying to tighten their belt, coupled with the fact that these allegations were self-reported by the U over a year ago, may buy some leniency.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? How much of this stuff was self-reported? Surely not all of it. If Miami self-reported that their coaches were running recruits to Shapiro's house, and then continued to employ those coaches throughout the 2010 season, then something is a little screwed up. I mean, more screwed up than it already is.
 
#414
#414
hog88 said:
I can read, you suggested the AA take away every scholly for 2 years. This is effect the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Unless they also completely stop play and let every single player go anywhere else without the 1 year sitting period (& let the scouts/recruiters come onto campus and start talking to Miami players immediately) then no, not really


They'll suck....but they're not going to end up like SMU where they couldn't even field a non-walk-on team for a year or two, so didn't even have seasons
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#415
#415
bamawriter said:
Wait, what? How much of this stuff was self-reported? Surely not all of it. If Miami self-reported that their coaches were running recruits to Shapiro's house, and then continued to employ those coaches throughout the 2010 season, then something is a little screwed up. I mean, more screwed up than it already is.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. If they'd self-reported a sliver of this stuff a year ago we'd have heard about it a long time ago.
 
#416
#416
bamawriter said:
Wait, what? How much of this stuff was self-reported? Surely not all of it. If Miami self-reported that their coaches were running recruits to Shapiro's house, and then continued to employ those coaches throughout the 2010 season, then something is a little screwed up. I mean, more screwed up than it already is.
Click to expand...

Miami self reported that these allegations had been made to the University by Shapiro 11 mo. ago. He wouldn't provide docs at the time, so I doubt the self-report had many specifics in it. They simply informed the NCAA that this was going to be a problem. The Unviersity also turned donation money from Shapiro to the Federal Gov't around this time, from what I've read.
 
#418
#418
MemphisCanes said:
Miami self reported that these allegations had been made to the University by Shapiro 11 mo. ago. He wouldn't provide docs at the time, so I doubt the self-report had many specifics in it. They simply informed the NCAA that this was going to be a problem. The Unviersity also turned donation money from Shapiro to the Federal Gov't around this time, from what I've read.
Click to expand...

Sure sounds like they took his allegations seriously. Clearly the self-reporting was done with the caveat that Miami didn't believe any of it. They clearly didn't do squat to investigate it internally. Had they done so, there are several players who would have been declared ineligible, at least temporarily.
 
#419
#419
lawgator1 said:
Where I primarily disagree with you is that SMU was basically the mainstay of the SWC at the time. They really had nothing else going for them on any consistent basis.

Removing Miami from the ACC hurts the ACC, yes, to a small degree. But not nearly like taking SMU out of the SWC-mix did back in the late 80's. The two situations are just not comparable as the ACC has FSU, Va. Tech, Clemson, and others that represent significant revenue generation.

Where I also disagree with you is on the notion of "not punishing those who are there now." The reason is that this argument can almost always be made when it comes to punishing a university or its team for something that occurred more than 2 years or so prior.

It is infrequently the case that a recruiting scandal breaks while its going on. It is usually either years later, or at least at the end of a career.

The problem, particularly in this case, is that these were not isolated incidents occurring outside of the knowledge of the coaches and staff. The coaches and staff facilitated it. If ever there was a case that represented an INSTITUTIONAL problem, this is it. Its the entire atmosphere surrounding that program.

Although I keep saying I am stunned by the depth of it, part of me basically expected something akin to this to happen to UM. Not to this depth, but basically this is what Miami has been "selling" for so long in terms of its football product: We're bad a** and don't give a f*** what you think.

Life imitating art, imo.
Click to expand...

145f6ec3be3c818c2bf956f9e3810369.png


Texas, a&M, and Arkansas were all members of the SWC at that time. And there was really only about a 10 year span where SMU was very good. Granted, selling out Texas Stadium means they were pretty popular, but not the mainstay that mihammy is in the ACC.

I think your last sentence is exactly right, and is the one thing that is going to hurt MiHammy the most.
 
#420
#420
bamawriter said:
Wait, what? How much of this stuff was self-reported? Surely not all of it. If Miami self-reported that their coaches were running recruits to Shapiro's house, and then continued to employ those coaches throughout the 2010 season, then something is a little screwed up. I mean, more screwed up than it already is.
Click to expand...

We are seeing that Marve and Charles were there at Shapiro's house in the past couple of years, while being recruited. So was their High School Coach apparently.
Shannon was neck deep in this, and so the term loss of institutional control reeks here.
 
#421
#421
bamawriter said:
Sure sounds like they took his allegations seriously. Clearly the self-reporting was done with the caveat that Miami didn't believe any of it. They clearly didn't do squat to investigate it internally. Had they done so, there are several players who would have been declared ineligible, at least temporarily.
Click to expand...

I guess if you assume the players are as guilty as Shapiro says, maybe. I don't know if an investigation was done, or if one was, what it found. It's a little early for the guilty until proven innocent talk though.

The NCAA hasn't said that any of the current players that were named in the article are inelgible, and they've been aware of the allegations for months now. The University hasn't suspended anyone yet.
 
#422
#422
Tampavolz said:
We are seeing that Marve and Charles were there at Shapiro's house in the past couple of years, while being recruited. So was their High School Coach apparently.
Shannon was neck deep in this, and so the term loss of institutional control reeks here.
Click to expand...

Both players, incidently, cleared by the NCAA this morning.
 
#423
#423
The NCAA won't declare anyone ineligible until they are done with this thing. If Miami declared them ineligible, the NCAA could have reinstated them. Perhaps they would have been required to sit a few games. Ultimately, it was on the school to take the initiative if they thought that Shapiro's allegations were in any way credible.

Too late to do anything about it now.
 
#424
#424
bamawriter said:
The NCAA won't declare anyone ineligible until they are done with this thing. If Miami declared them ineligible, the NCAA could have reinstated them. Perhaps they would have been required to sit a few games. Ultimately, it was on the school to take the initiative if they thought that Shapiro's allegations were in any way credible.

Too late to do anything about it now.
Click to expand...

Maybe suspensions from the University will come in the next two weeks, before the season begins. Like UNC last year.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top