Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

ladyblaise said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. But I do not believe that the suggestion that CU should have been monitoring athletes 24/7 was restricted to recruits, was it?

Has there been any suggestion that the recruits who attended "that" party received any kind of excessive benefits or violated any NCAA regulations as a result? I am unaware of any such allegations. Granted, they violated some laws against underage drinking, apparently, but I hardly think they were alone in that on a Saturday night in a University town. What other laws they may have broken will remain a matter for the legal system, which to date has been unable to find cause to charge them with anything...

As for the Sooners, the excessive remuneration occurred on their watch. Just as the undercharge for meals occurred on CU's. Each discovered and reported the alleged infractions themselves. Which brings us right back to the proportional relationship between the crimes and the punishment and whether they are in relation to one another. I think there is a very reasonable debate to be had there, and not in OU's favor... :huh:
 
Junction said:
True. But I do not believe that the suggestion that CU should have been monitoring athletes 24/7 was restricted to recruits, was it?

Has there been any suggestion that the recruits who attended "that" party received any kind of excessive benefits or violated any NCAA regulations as a result? I am unaware of any such allegations. Granted, they violated some laws against underage drinking, apparently, but I hardly think they were alone in that on a Saturday night in a University town. What other laws they may have broken will remain a matter for the legal system, which to date has been unable to find cause to charge them with anything...

As for the Sooners, the excessive remuneration occurred on their watch. Just as the undercharge for meals occurred on CU's. Each discovered and reported the alleged infractions themselves.
Click to expand...

right up to that point, we are 100% junk! :thumbsup: i am not going to throw a fuss that we have penalties, nor will i cry for ou that they recieved any.
 
Junction said:
I think there is a very reasonable debate to be had there, and not in OU's favor... :huh:
Click to expand...

And OU's penalty is more harsh than CU's is, albeit not by much. The loss of two scholarships really is a big deal. Maybe not as big a deal as we'd like to see, but a big deal just the same. In the end, the $100,000 fine levied against CU isn't even that big a deal, as North Carolina will end up paying a $100,000 fee to get out of the home/home football arrangement. So that's a wash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top