CU didn't give out free meals. They just didn't charge quite enough for the ones the non-scholly players paid for at the training table. :sad2:
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sooners forfeit 2005 season, lose two scholarships
- Thread starter Lt.Col.FrankSlade
- Start date
CU didn't give out free meals. They just didn't charge quite enough for the ones the non-scholly players paid for at the training table. :sad2:
Have the sc and osu cases been put to rest by Big Brother yet? Big Bro may still be investigating.
I agree that OSU should have gotten serious sanctions, as should SC (I'm sure they won't). But I also think OU's penalty is WAY too lenient in light of what just came down on CU.
Severity is a big issue to me because programs like OU, OSU, USC break these rules and nothing of substance happens to them. Meanwhile, CU gives some walk-ons some free meals and gets hit with a $100k fine and a lost schollie.
It's completely inconsistent and lets the big schools walk while hammering others. Or maybe Brand just has a hard on for CU, I don't know.
EDIT: It seems as you go down the sliding scale of how important a school is to the NCAA (USC and OSU would undoubtedly be at the top of the list and OU isn't far behind, if at all), the punishment for infractions goes up and up.
Last edited:
rino, it isn't right that cu got hit as hard as they did. they did not get that irate when nu qbs were recieving free ham sammiches.
it is what it is.
CU wasn't even providing free meals, they just undercharged by a couple of bucks! Miles and the NCAA are ****ing asswipes. With the penalties given to OU, OSU, and USC (not!), you will see a rash of other big time schools taking more risks with these types of illegal activity. Unless they are willing to bring the hammer on one of the big time programs and make the playing field level, it will only get worse. Back to the SEC days of old!
here is something that i would like to know more about mealgate - how much exactly? how many times? what was the total discrepancy?
sackman said something about $6. he said that if it were $6 PER MEAL, it could be significant. i agree.
conversation dropped off after that, and i have not seen anything after that initial figure. who has the scoop?
if this was going on for some time, and it got significant, then i really am not going to cry about probation. we need to follow all the rules, and we should definitely be aware of how to charge appropriately for meals.
i was just given a link to an article indicating that the total amount was 60k. it happened over a long time, and for a number of kids.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ncaa/article/0,2777,DRMN_23932_5596611,00.html
while i think that perhaps the ncaa is bureaucratic, and this may be a fluff rule, we did this to ourselves. a 100k fine over 60k of something which should have been squared away is, imo, fair.
brad - the article says that an athlete indicated to ceal barry that the meals were indeed free...
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ncaa/article/0,2777,DRMN_23932_5596611,00.html
while i think that perhaps the ncaa is bureaucratic, and this may be a fluff rule, we did this to ourselves. a 100k fine over 60k of something which should have been squared away is, imo, fair.
brad - the article says that an athlete indicated to ceal barry that the meals were indeed free...
Lord Helmet
Member
Perhaps another consideration:
at OU, all the wrongdoing was done by a booster, a dealer, a business. the school could hide behind the mr shultz "i know nothing" routine.
at CU, the reduced meals were passed out over how long and within an earshot of a compliance officer, yes?
So, in essence, the violations at CU happened right under their nose. While at OU, they happened on a car lot who knows how far from Stoops crib?
Just a thought. And no ****ing flaming either, Im just trying to look at things again (ok , over and over and over)....
at OU, all the wrongdoing was done by a booster, a dealer, a business. the school could hide behind the mr shultz "i know nothing" routine.
at CU, the reduced meals were passed out over how long and within an earshot of a compliance officer, yes?
So, in essence, the violations at CU happened right under their nose. While at OU, they happened on a car lot who knows how far from Stoops crib?
Just a thought. And no ****ing flaming either, Im just trying to look at things again (ok , over and over and over)....
Deleted member 807
Guest
Wonder how much mealgate weighed on the decission to cut Tennis.
The timing of the investigation and budget decission are similar.
I suppose an arguement could be made that the NCAA sanction was the death penalty for CU's tennis.
Kinda smells like Fairbanks's financial follies bring the end to CU baseball.
Jumping to conclusions here, let's recruit some more accountants in the athletic department. There's only so much you can expect from kinesiology and sports marketing majors.
The timing of the investigation and budget decission are similar.
I suppose an arguement could be made that the NCAA sanction was the death penalty for CU's tennis.
Kinda smells like Fairbanks's financial follies bring the end to CU baseball.
Jumping to conclusions here, let's recruit some more accountants in the athletic department. There's only so much you can expect from kinesiology and sports marketing majors.
Deleted member 807
Guest
http://www.doubleazone.com/News/reilly.htm
Fairweather CU Alum Rick Reilly did a good job on this NCAA double standard thing. You think CU got screwed? Check out what the NCAA bureau-twits did to the Carnigie Mellon's track star.
Fairweather CU Alum Rick Reilly did a good job on this NCAA double standard thing. You think CU got screwed? Check out what the NCAA bureau-twits did to the Carnigie Mellon's track star.
i was talking with someone tonight that there was indeed too much bureaucracy in the ncaa. sometimes i can see the reason why they exist. others? bah.
Actually that is not correct. The walk on students had a residence hall meal pass but did not get charged the difference between the residence hall meal cost and the training table cost, between $6-$8 per meal.
http://www.buffzone.com/news/2007/jun/22/barry-caught-violation-early-on-in-her-new-job/
If you want to be even more outraged, take a look at the article from Woelk.
http://www.buffzone.com/news/2007/jun/22/odd-brand-of-justice-for-cu/
Say what you will but the punishment handed down to CU was unjust and would not even be a violation if it happend starting this August according the Woelk (just going off what he is reporting)
:sad2: CU was not intentionally breaking rules. Ceal Berry realized that the athletic department had mis-interpreted how they were supposed to charge non scolarship players for meals. The players were being charged what they would have been charged in a dorm cafateria. But, because the training table meals were "better", they should have been charged a couple of bucks more. She brought it to Bohn's attention. He "self reported" the "violation." What CU was doing has since been approved as "legal" by the nc ****ing aa. As Neal Woelk said, CU did the right thing but, essentially, screwed itself because tons of other schools likely did the same thing and will get off scott free because it is no legal to charge dorm prices for athletic meals. But for CU this is a MAJOR VIOLATION!!! :sad2:
Totally ****ing agree...No Free cars, no payments for work not done,no payments from boosters! **** is was an accounting and procedural error that was corrected and self reported. The CU case does not compare to OU, OSU, USC. We get hit with a fine that is $40K more than the actual under charging for the meal. I guess if we would have let them have cars or paid them for work they didn't do, we would gotten off without a fine, vacate some wins, and skate on into the future. No wait it is CU, we would have gotten the death penalty.
The NCAA is corrupt!
just passing on what the rmn intimated "In a routine conversation with a non-scholarship student-athlete, Barry told the walk-on he could be reimbursed for money spent on meals at the school's training table.
Looking puzzled, he said he hadn't paid for any training-table meals. "
your articles really flush out the story more. while i understand that come this fall, it will be okay, it was not okay when it happened, and we really were responsible to know how it should work. we had a staffmember whose job it was to know, and to track it.
we dropped the ball.
the inconsistency piece is exactly what i was talking about with osu. they let them walk. the nation hates what the ncaa did to bloom. did that play into our ending up with an infraction? maybe. it could be meticulously planned.
but did you think we were going to get off scot free with a 60k oops?
i REALLY liked the articles you put up. i think if we did not engage in the oops to begin with, we would not be on probation, right? :thumbsup:
it IS a good idea to tell the truth, even if the truth comes with a consequence.
LB, I agree with you on the problems that existed in the program should not have happened. My problem with this is, like you have said, the inconsistency with the punishment that is handed down. Probation fine. Schollies does not really bother me that much as I really do not think they will have an effect. What pisses me off is that the consequences just do not line up with what is being handed out in other cases. On that you and I are on the same page. :thumbsup:
Lord Helmet
Member
I dont think I said it was intentional. It was, however, right under their nose the entire time. I am really disappointed in how things shook out for CU. I am also now more convinced that if you are a major player in the NCAA, you get treated differently. I tend to hold those in charge of these large entities to a higher standard. Ethical standards I guess. Not wanting to argue about it -- but shouldnt the compliance officer whos office was right outside the meal area (Woelks article) noticed what was occuring? Wasnt that HER job?
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
This is one thing that I think Bobby Knight has totally got the right idea on.
He has said, numerous times -- that the NCAA needs to completely overhaul and rewrite their rules. Instead of writing down all the things that schools CAN'T do -- the NCAA should write a new rulebook, and the only things that should go into it are the things that schools CAN do.
The book would be about 5 pages long.
He has said, numerous times -- that the NCAA needs to completely overhaul and rewrite their rules. Instead of writing down all the things that schools CAN'T do -- the NCAA should write a new rulebook, and the only things that should go into it are the things that schools CAN do.
The book would be about 5 pages long.
That pisses me off, too. But given the fact that CU self-reported a violation (which may not have been a violation at all, apparently) and proposed their own punishment, which is the one that seems out of whack with OU's, I'm not sure that I'm pissed at the NCAA. For a change... :huh:
Agree with you on all but 1 point. We proposed paying a fine equal to the dollars involved with the meals. The NCAA increasd it to $100K from the proposed $60K. That is bull**** when OU keeps bowl money, no fine at all. And don't even get me started on the OSU and USC situations.
They are still ****tards!
Thanks. Now I'm pissed at the NCAA again. :sad2: All is as it should be... :thumbsup:
it was a definite violation, at the time. it would be a violation THIS MINUTE. you are right though, that in the fall it will soon no longer be a violation.
think of it like this: lets say that we decide we are going to lower the drinking age for 3.2 products back down to 18 effective December 1, 2007. on Halloween, a quantity of kids are found to be in posession of alcohol. they find themselves in trouble, because at that moment in time, they are not following the rules.
that could be because of a couple factors:
1. the ncaa is not the organization that runs the bowl systems. that is not ncaa money they recieved.
2. ou DID NOT , DID NOT pay those kids. to hold ou responsible for the actions of a separate entity, off campus is absolutely ridiculous. if you expect ou to be held responsible for the off campus activities tangential to its athletes, would you be happy if the same standard was held to cu?
it seems to me that we were adamant that our university NOT be held responsible for a party involving our athletes. why the double standard?
Agree to a point. Boosters paying kids or giving money to a coach to have a kid go to a school (can you say Alabama - what happened to them? Not fines but no post season appearances for 2 years. Maybe that would have been better for OU) fall into a different category. We might as well give free reign to the boosters then. There are numerous rules on the books in this area and schools are held responsible. Schools have not been held responsible for the arrests of students athletes and I cannot remember a school that has ever been put on probation for even the most reprehensible crimes committed by players. If they had, NU would have been given the death penalty when a so called running back was sent to anger management classes.
I don't believe that the NCAA requires schools to have oversight of athlete's party activities. I do believe the NCAA requires schools to have oversight of athlete's employment arrangements. So it is not an exact correlation. I do agree, though, that expecting schools to monitor kids on a 24/7 basis is a bit of a reach... :huh:
Still, when you have multiple kids working for a booster, I do think it is incumbent on a school's AD to ensure that things with that employer are above board and NCAA compliant.
i completely agree that schools cannot monitor kids 24/7.
i have no reason not to believe that the ou situation was reported as soon as they were able to discover it. as has been relayed before in various outlets, ou athletes are required to mail in or fax in their tax records during the summer as a regular compliance check. last year, two raised eyebrows: quinns and bomar's - owing to what was deemed excessive renumeration.
ou called upon the auto dealership to get some answers. the answers were not pleasing, particularly the timecards. as the students reported for camp, quinn and bomar were questioned. soon after, they were kicked off the team.
other than physically marching down to the dealership to watch their kids work, i do not know how else you expected OU to "know" about the situation until the proof was in the pudding. can you prove that their department did NOT make a few calls during the year? it is clear that for some time, athletes had been employed there, and this was the first sign of trouble. the definitive proof came by way of a thorough records review, when the compliance office had their hands on tax records.
they cannot afford to hire babysitters to walk with these kids all day long. cu certainly doesn't. in no way did ou pay these kids. they have to pay the price for three entities acting on their own volition.
and junction - recruit visitations do entail numerous regulations by the ncaa - from how much can be spent on a recruit, how often a recruit can visit, any gifts recieved from the university come under STRICT regulation. the oversight of this falls to the athletic department.