🏈 UNC Tarheels banned from 2012 postseason

[TerryP]

The NCAA has placed North Carolina's football program on three years' probation and banned it from the 2012 postseason, the governing body announced Monday.

The school already had imposed several penalties, including vacating all 16 wins for 2008 and 2009, reducing nine scholarships over the next three academic years and putting the program on two years of probation.


But the NCAA didn't stop at UNC's self-imposed penalties, finding that the school was responsible for violations including academic fraud, impermissible agent benefits, participation by ineligible players and a failure to monitor the football program.


"My only regret is for the current players, especially the seniors, who will not have the opportunity to compete for an ACC championship and go through the experience of a bowl game in 2012," new Tar Heels coach Larry Fedora said in a prepared statement. "We will do all we can to make every game this year a special experience for our seniors and fans." |



According to the NCAA, multiple student-athletes received impermissible benefits totaling more than $31,000 and six players competed while ineligible, in addition to other violations.

From ESPN

 

[planomateo]

so a few things...

"We considered an appeal. But given the timing and the record that other schools have had with appeals, as well as the fact that penalties are suspended during an appeal, we've decided it's best to accept our sanctions and move forward."

I find this interesting, don't you always appeal regardless of chances of an improvement?

"It should also serve to warn student-athletes that if they choose to accept benefits from agents or their associates, they risk losing their eligibility for collegiate competition."

In my opinion, until they can impact money made by these student-athletes in future earnings or the NCAA can act much quicker, there is no WARNING. Lets face it, rarely do the NCAA findings come out when the student-athlete are still in college and the only ones who get hurt are all the other students.

So does this fall all on the kids who knew better but opted not to play buy the rules, going down the path of recruiting kids with the best character seems the most important - how hard is it for a coaching staff to evaluate these things with the limited contact they get. Would UNC have received fewer punishments had that aggressively monitored some of the guys with the most potential.

Wondering if this is a good barometer for what Miami will get.

 

[TerryP]

I hadn't considered these sanctions in light of the Miami story.

But, I did look at the 31K in benefits they said the student athletes received and immediately thought about the South Carolina dollar figure. I believe it was in the 40-41K range.

Does the dollar amount have a bearing? Or, in UNC's case, is it more of the point of how many kids versus the dollar amount.

A guessing game. That's all it is with the COI.

 

[planomateo]

pretty good read that discusses the USC, UNC, Ohio State rulings and why some were harsher than the others.

http://www.presnapread.com/compare-and-contrast-3-n-c-a-a-rulings/

U.S.C. Impermissible benefits and amateurism violations stemming from Reggie Bush’s relationship with the financiers behind the now-defunct New Era Sports agency, as well as the school’s failure to report said violations, led the N.C.A.A. to cite the university for a lack of institutional control. As a result, the N.C.A.A. penalized U.S.C. 30 scholarships over the next three years and handed out a two-year postseason ban.

Ohio State According to the N.C.A.A., multiple players accepted impermissible benefits – selling team paraphernalia, accepting goods and services from local businesses. In addition, Jim Tressel not only had knowledge of these violations but denied all such knowledge, failing to disclose to the N.C.A.A. the breadth of his player’s missteps. As a result, the N.C.A.A. docked the program nine scholarships over three years and added a one-year postseason ban.


U.N.C. Hot off the presses: impermissible benefits, unethical conduct, academic fraud and a failure to monitor. According to the N.C.A.A., seven players received cash benefits – totaling $27,544.88 – from individuals who “triggered N.C.A.A. agent legislation.” While employed by the university, former assistant coach John Blake was involved in a partnership with an agent, Gary Wichard, and lied about this relationship when interviewed by N.C.A.A. investigators.

I thought this was an interesting question - would USC's penalties be different today? I kinda think Ohio State got off easy, they certainly didn't appear to cooperate with the NCAA.

The big question: What would U.S.C.’s penalties be today? If Ohio State came first, would the Buckeyes be in the middle of 30 lost scholarships and a two-year postseason ban? Considering that U.N.C. also had players dealing with agents, would the school have landed U.S.C.-like penalties had it come first, not the Trojans?

 

[RollTideRandy]

So if cheating means you don't get to play in the post season....

North Texas must be the biggest cheaters EVER! :icon_razz: