šŸˆ Oregon avoids bowl ban, given 3 years probation

PhillyGirl

Member
Should have limited them to 3 uniform changes per season ..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ootball-ncaa-investigation-probation/2459297/

The committee levied the following penalties:
  • Public reprimand and censure.
  • Three years of probation from June 26, 2013 through June 25, 2016.
  • An 18-month show cause order for the former head coach. The public report contains further details.
  • A one-year show-cause order for former assistant director of operations Josh Gibson.
  • A reduction of initial football scholarships by one from the maximum allowed (25) during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years (imposed by the university).
  • A reduction of total football scholarships by one from the maximum allowed (85) during the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years (imposed by the university).
  • A reduction of official paid football visits to from 56 to 37 for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years.
  • A reduction of permissible football evaluation days from 42 to 36 in the fall of 2013, 2014 and 2015 and permissible football evaluation days from 168 to 144 in the spring of 2014, 2015 and 2016.
  • A ban on the subscription to recruiting services during the probation period.
  • A disassociation of the recruiting service provider, Will Lyles.
 
Colin Cowherd just jokingly said "How often do you get to say 'Congratulations to the University of Oregon on the sanctions'."

He is pretty livid right now. He said "they are just spinning a wheel in Indy. What did it land on? 1 scholarship loss...ok"
 
Lame Duck COI Gives Oregon Light Penalties


NCAA major infractions cases are often made out to be significant moments in NCAA history. When a big program is under investigation or in front of the Committee on Infractions, the NCAA is either going to finally get tough on violators or finally start treating schools fairly.

When Yahoo! Sports broke the Willie Lyles and Oregon case case way back in 2011, it certainly looked like this would actually be a landmark case in the COI’s history. Here was a rising program that had paid a significant sum of money to a third party for what appeared to be not his recruiting service, but his access to prospects. Just before the story broke, the NCAA had targeted third-party involvement in recruiting, and had zeroed in on sham recruiting services. New bylaws and stiff penalties (especially in men’s basketball) sought to cut off a way to launder and funnel money to people with influence over prospects. And here a major program looked like it was caught dead to rights.

Fast forward to 2013. The Oregon case dragged on, delayed by procedural wrangling as the school and enforcement staff tried, but failed, to come to a summary disposition agreement that pleased the Committee on Infractions. In the meanwhile, much changed about the NCAA’s enforcement program, both generally and specifically as it relates to recruiting services. An expanded COI, new penalty matrix, and new head coach responsibility bylaws take effect in just over a month. The recruiting service legislation got another change, with the NCAA now pre-approving services for use in football and basketball.

Whether Oregon got hammered or Oregon got off with a slap on the wrist made no difference. The case has no lasting impact. The NCAA has already promised (once again) to get tough on cheaters starting in August. The structure and composition of the COI will change, so even the personal views of these members are less relevant. And the ability of a recruiting service to be used as a money laundering operation is drastically reduced when the NCAA has to approve the services.

Had the enforcement staff brought the case up for a hearing as soon as possible after the investigation finished, in spring 2012, the stakes would have higher. But the delay in trying to seek summary disposition meant the case was heard in a different context. Now the COI is a bit of a lame duck, just passing the time until they are given new authority, new tools, and new members in August. Most of their attention has to be focused on Miami, another major issue that arose between when this case might have been heard and when it actually was.

In the end, it was a Committee on Infractions at the end of an era ruling on a case that could send little or no message that hadn’t already been sent, and interpreting a bylaw that was already out of date. The report reflects this, with more attention paid to Lyles’ recruiting as a booster than to the $25,000 he got for little or no scouting work. What looked to be a blockbuster showdown in 2011 ended up as simply clearing the decks for Miami and the new regime two years later.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>A Pac-12 coach on Oregon's NCAA sanctions: &quot;What penalty? They punished ppl who aren't even there any more.&quot;</p>&mdash; Bruce Feldman (@BFeldmanCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/BFeldmanCBS/statuses/349937175103684609">June 26, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
A Pac-12 coach on Oregon's NCAA sanctions: "What penalty? They punished ppl who aren't even there any more."
— Bruce Feldman (@BFeldmanCBS) June 26, 2013
<SCRIPT charset=utf-8 src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" async></SCRIPT>

That is a change. Usually the people who are long gone get off the hook, and the people who are left behind pay the penalty.
 
Only way Chip Kelly EVER has to sit because of the show cause, is if he goes 0-16 this season. We all know that won't happen. Oregon skates because they paid a guy, "recruiting service" to direct players to Oregon and sign them. Meanwhile, Alabama and USC are still looking for the kiss on the cheek after receiving thetreatment they took.
 
^^ There's a CHANCE that the NFL could do with him what they did to Jim Tressel and make him sit out the first few weeks but they didnt do it to Pete Carrol so maybe they wont do it to head coaches. Yea I know no logic there but Fiddel Goodel doesnt have a ton of logic.
 
Terry, your post mentioned: [relating to the CoI] "until they are given the authority [to investigate and punish]".

My question is, who gives them the authority, why, and why should THAT party have authority over the CoI? What is the root for all of this authority and why is it still relevant?

My point is, do we still really need an NCAA (in its current draconian state) for a major revenue sport like D1 football?

I have no strong feelings I. The Oregon case. Not even when it comes to the past and how this punishment is circuitously related to Alabama. I am interested though, in hearing your thoughts on the NCAA and why it is still calling the shots. Who lets THEM call the shots?
 
Terry, your post mentioned: [relating to the CoI] "until they are given the authority [to investigate and punish]".

My question is, who gives them the authority, why, and why should THAT party have authority over the CoI? What is the root for all of this authority and why is it still relevant?

The only way I know to answer that question is to say it tends to discourage your SMU type recruiting practices. It tends to do the same on an academic front with schools found focusing more on the success of an individual sport versus players as students: IE: UCONN

My point is, do we still really need an NCAA (in its current draconian state) for a major revenue sport like D1 football?

No, I don't believe we need on in its current state.

I've mentioned on several occasions that we need a split within the NCAA. For lack of a better way to put it, a different governing body for not just D1 schools, but the big five conferences. A separate body for the D1 programs that remain, and separate governing bodies for D2, D3, NAIA.

How much sense does it make for an administrator from a school like John Hopkins making major decisions for schools like Oregon?

I have no strong feelings I. The Oregon case. Not even when it comes to the past and how this punishment is circuitously related to Alabama. I am interested though, in hearing your thoughts on the NCAA and why it is still calling the shots. Who lets THEM call the shots?

In the end there are only two thoughts I come away with:

One, how differently would the NCAA COI have ruled if Chip were still there? Or, better yet, how differently would the ruling be if Seastrunck were still at Oregon?

Secondly:

Matt and I were exchanging a few text's regarding this yesterday and all I can see coming from this is just another black eye the NCAA will be wearing for the next few years. Adding to that, it's probably all but sealed the fate of Emmert.

All that said, let me add one thing to this.

As much as I hate the idea of a big governing body, it makes sense to have one for football and all its divisions. It makes sense to have a separate body for basketball, for baseball, and all the other sports.
 
^^ There's a CHANCE that the NFL could do with him what they did to Jim Tressel and make him sit out the first few weeks but they didnt do it to Pete Carrol so maybe they wont do it to head coaches. Yea I know no logic there but Fiddel Goodel doesnt have a ton of logic.

That wasn't the NFL's decision, that was Indy's call. The NFL did lead the way on Pryor but that had to do with suspicions—founded suspicions in my opinion—he had purposefully failed to remain eligible so he could apply for and enter the supplemental draft.

I question if the NFL can, legally, make a move where they suspend an employee for something he did at another job. Especially when that other job is with a different employer that has no association with the league.
 
Back
Top Bottom