Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Lt.Col.FrankSlade, Jul 11, 2007.
Point of clarification: is that two scholarships off of the 85 total they're allowed, or two off of the max 25 per year they can use? If their total scholarships have been reduced to 83 for a period of two years, that's a much bigger deal than a reduction to 23 scholarships per year for two years.
edit: nevermind. I read a little farther in the story. It's 83 for two years. That's a significant penalty, IMO.
Not clear at this time. I think they are reduced to only having 83 scholarships for the next two years.
this is a bigger slap on the wrist than anything. 2 schollies..... for having is essence professional players on the team??? wipe out their past and do not affect their future???? there should have been no post season for at least one year if not 3 and more than 2 schollies.... this makes cu's punishment seem far more severe for the level of what happened, reduce meal prices compared to getting paid, is there a fine associated?..... this is BS IMO. Basically we can conclude if the NCAA makes good money from your school you dont need to worry about violations.
Lame. That is the only word to describe MB. He is simply not going to deal with a marquee program like OU the way he will slap around somebody like CU. OU's penalty is slightly more stiff than CU's, I'll grant you that, but CU was basically subsdizing a student necessity, Quinn and Bomar were lining their pockets and AP was taking a LONG joyride in a Lexus. I don't know if the AP thing was part of the investigation or not, but MB proves again an invertebrate can rise to the top of the NCAA totem pole.:sad2:
OU fans are OK by me, I generally have had a good time at their place and I can deal with the Sooners better than most of the B12, but this hacks me off.
Explain to me what impact forfeiting the 2005 season has? I agree - this sure feels like a slap on the wrist.
it is okay for mo clarett to line his pockets and take a multi-month joyride, but the buckeyes keep their nc, but for essentially the same offense, the sooners are stripped of a season and lose schollies?
explain the fairness?
you dont actually think it is too severe do you?
i do not believe i commented at all on severity?
its like getting sentenced to a year in jail and then finding out that all you have to do is tell people that you spent last year in jail.
it's all about the being consistent, which the NCAA isn't..
Does the Holiday Bowl revenue have to be refunded, too?
I've never understood that either. "You hereby forfeit all those games you won 2 seasons ago". Umm, okay....
This is a penalty that provides absolutely no real impact to the Sooners' on-field performance or their off-field bottom line. What's the ****ing point?
About as much effect as when CU forfeited all of it's games from '96 or so when Slick Rick let an ineligible player on the field. I didn't care then, and I don't care now because the games were history before the ruling came out. I imagine OU fan is laughing at that part of the wrist slap right about now. Why not have CU forfeit it's wins from '03 for the feeding the walkon scandal? Myles Brand is a joke IMO.
was there even a fine involved here??? if not one COULD conclude cu got hammered by comparison with 100k. I mean doesn't OU lead the nation in multiple violations?? if it is the schools what 7th offense should it not be more severe than a school with few or no violations?
if there is no fine, the bowl money, the pay the kids received, the Lexus bluebook value.... this stinks of fish IMO.
assuming this is going to be recorded as a "major infraction", at worse, they would be tied with ASU et. al. ncaa major infraction list
many, many others are right on their heels, waylon, numbers wise. the huskers are no angels either. remember the famous schollie buyback program? only a very naive person thinks this kind of stuff happens everywhere else but at their program. it is rampant.
there is a whole lot to be commented on about your assertion that the university should have to pay funds for bluebook etc... but i am not going to gum it up here. if you can come up with a coherent argument as to why that is remotely sane, feel free to pm me, and we will keep it there.
well it currently looks like a sweep, men's FB, Hoops, Gymnastics and Womens Gymnastics.
Division I FBS institutions on probation
The following institutions are currently on probation by the NCAA:
Arizona State (through 2007)
Baylor (through 2010)
Fresno State (through 2010)
Georgia (through 2008)
Georgia Tech (through 2007)
Iowa (through 2008)
Kansas (through 2009)
Memphis (through 2007)
Mississippi State (through 2008)
Missouri (through 2007)
Northern Illinois (through 2007)
Ohio State (through 2009)
Oklahoma (through 2008)
South Carolina (through 2008)
TCU (through 2007)
Washington (through 2007)
:lol: by far, they do not hold the "sweep" record, given the document you linked to. four teams have 13 or more sports on probation. THAT is a far more effective sweep, don't you think?
i wonder if any of them have been placed on double secret probation?
So, the NCAA kicks OU in the teeth, right after they kicked CU in the balls?
right as theyre sucking off usc
hun...... that would be a sweep when comparing OU to NU. YOU suggested NU not being angels with many "right on their heels".... (knock on wood) only KU, cu and Mizzu are the only other b12's trying to keep pace but OU has them all beat combined.
OU is going to appeal.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I expected. I suspect nothing will happen to SC with the Reggie Bush situation as well.
Miles Brand is afraid to enforce his own rules against college FB's big programs. Bama might be the last major program to get any serious sanctions. Brand just won't do it.
the ncaa makes too much money from the oklahomas, southern cals, ohio states of this world to throw the book at them.
"on their heels" referenced the total number of times that b12 schools have had major infraction run-ins with the ncaa. let's take a closer look at who is in the mix with ku, cu, and mizzou shall we? (this info is from the link i provided, above).
A&M - 7 infractions
oklahoma - 7
kansas state - 6
kansas - 6
baylor - 5
colorado - 5
osu - 4
nebraska - 4
mizzou - 4
ut - 4
you might want to rethink whether oklahoma has them all beat, combined. you might also want to revisit your stance that "only" cu, mizzou and ku are dirtying up the big 12. nu is definitely doing their fair share, if the ncaa records are to be believed, don't you think?
quite possibly, which is a shame, given the equivalent nature of the situation between ou, ohio state, and usc.
"During the investigation, the university disputed that allegation, arguing that the NCAA should applaud, not penalize, its efforts to root out violations and noted that NCAA president Myles Brand told one news outlet that the university "acted with integrity in taking swift and decisive action" in the case.
They lose no money. Stoops loses the '85 wins, but they don't go into the "lost" column.
Oh, I lump OU in there with OSU and USC as far as being a major program getting off lightly. OU got no more than a slap on the wrist. CU's sanction for mealgate was almost as bad, yet the transgression was nowhere near as severe. OU broke some major rules and got off very, very light.
Alabama got 2 years of no-postseason probation for a similar transgression (booster paying players - that's exactly what happened at the car dealership) back in the 90s. OU loses 2 schollies, with no fine. WEAK. And they were already on probation when this happened.
CU gets hammered for some free meals, OU gets off almost scot-free after some major infractions. The NCAA can blow me.
severity is a non issue to me. it is not a death penalty, therefore, is not shocking. no tv lost, no postseason lost.
again: why not usc and osu? i think there should be consistency for equivalent misdeeds.
Separate names with a comma.